As, I've said, science does not prove things, it explains them. Now let's use the most famous science in history to demonstrate what I just said.
Newton saw apples fall to the ground. That was the observation that began the science. That was establishing the fact that needed explanation. At that point, does Newton need to prove to you the fact that apples fall to the ground IS a fact? Of course not, don't be silly. Why does he need not do that?
BECAUSE THE FACT THAT APPLES FALL TO THE GROUND IS SELF EVIDENT.
Then, Newton got curious. Without that, no one would have ever heard of him! So, then Newton tried to explain HOW gravity worked.
Another example, when man first made bronze, we had no idea how or why it worked, only that it did. Later, we performed science! We tried to explain it. Why? Because then when the processes were understood, we could make other types of alloys too! Do we know everything about metalurgy now? Doubtful. Has science still provided us with useful data that helped mankind? Yes, in spades.
Science is trying to defy gravity with harmonics because we know enough about each PROCESS that we might now begin to explore some permutations on a theme just like we did with alloys. It doesn't really have much with "proving" anything as it is taking processes we now understand better and then saying... how about this or why not that? In other words, study revealed the process, which we then took for a ride so to speak.
This is not self evident. Even so, if you want a study on radar, that's as much as you will get out of a study on radar returns. If you want to know about the objects, then we must have the objects for study.Countless multiple radar returns corroborated by multiple ground witnesses of aerial object defying our capabilities.
*Sigh*. The English language is rife with words that can mean different things in different contexts. Why do you think words have more than one dictionary definition?You are misusing the term "hearsay". It is a legal term defined as: “Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town," as opposed to "I saw Tom in town," which is direct evidence.” Source - Wikipedia.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
Source - dictionary.com
Just because science has standards does not mean its infallible. Just like any human endeavor, mistakes can be made. Again, that's the PRECISE REASON for the scientific method; to try to avoid the human traps... such as a certain researcher who would prefer a certain result to be true. That's why we have peer review. Again, standards standards standards. Without them the hucksters can fool us all. That does not make science infallible by any means."Ridiculous" is your term. Science investigates and wastes their time studying a lot of things. But this one time they cannot spend the time or money. Bull.
My point was simply that there is nothing self evident here with regards to UFOs for science to study. Not even the UFOs themselves!
Lol, ok, but far from what we've been hearing in this topic.Their assertion is not that aliens inhabit UFO’s. It is that something is flying in our skies that we, nor science, understands.
Bring me something self evident to study. You haven't a thing but radar blips. Again, fine... if you want a study on radar blips!You make it seem that science will take on anything that they can get their hands on. Not so. They get their funding largely from grants…money that can get cut off if they do not fall into lock-step with the norms of science. UFO's are taboo to them. They avoid it like the plague, not because there is nothing to study, but because of ridicule and funding.
There's lots of things that science can't explain. Does that mean that Pyramids are no longer self-evident because of it? Does it mean that prior to Newton and Einstien explaining how gravity worked that it didn't exist? Just because a self evident fact may exist doesn't mean that we'll explain it well or at all. But it does mean we can at least try. Without a self evident fact, we can't even do that, leaving God and UFOs by the wayside.There are ruins all around the world they cannot explain. They throw out ridiculous claims that they were built with hammers and chisels to obtain fatnesses that exceed glass of our time and we accept it. Why. Because a scientist says it is so. Not to mention lifting huge stones without the benefit of wood in the area.
Of course, you could always develop a way to capture these objects for study. You'd be rich!