You are wrong. I don't know where you got your information, but it is not correct. You have not cited your sources. Global researchers, my ass. You and yourself does not constitute a global opinion.
Well, since I am wrong about my (this) "FACT" (theory/argument) -- that the Green dialect/language IS NOT the original language of the Hmong/Mong (Miao=Hmong-Chinese) -- per your ignorance; which any sound Hmong academic, or non-Hmong, can easily cite/research, why don't you CITE yours that claims, or shows and proves, that the "Green dialect is the original language", if that is truly your belief. (To my knowledge, there is NO (zero) work, study, research, or any creditable scholar(s)/person even remotely alluding to this hypothesis whatsoever except Green Mong hearsay -- that is Green pride period, nothing more.)
One thing that is sure (or can be scientifically/empirically proven), is that Green Mong; the language and the people are not, and IS NOT anything remotely genuine, that is the ORIGINAL, or ancestral bloodline of the Hmong/Mong/Hmong-Chinese. The scientific/empirical data (facts) actually (arguably) says the complete opposite. Yes, this/these published academics can be cited/researched, of and within Western and Eastern scholars/researchers -- Hmong and non-Hmong alike.
But since you asked, I'll entertain the inquiry and name one of many known scholars/researchers who have argued/claimed that the "Green Hmong -- the language and its people" ARE NOT the original/authentic Hmong/Mong/Hmong-Chinese. It is that Hmong-Aussie guy, for starters. (Surely you must know this Aussie Hmong guy?) As for a non-Hmong, N. Tapp comes to mind, for starters. (Now go do your diligence, at researching these well-known scholarships, and learn (universal) FACT from (Green) fiction. Ua tsaug.)