Science does not stop with their statement that “there is nothing to study.” They lead people to conclude there is nothing to study because there is nothing to the subject but mass hallucinations and misidentifications on a grand scale. Of course they will not come out and say that, but that is what they infer. Furthermore, you use the term “conspiracy theory” because you know that word has a tone of ridiculousness to it (as in “conspiracy nut”). Again, leading to a conclusion that has no facts to support it.
A good debater/presenter will keep his statements short and guide the listener to a conclusion that they did not outright say. It is the key to being an effective lawyer/politician. I could just as easily suppose that the scientific community does not possess hard evidence of UFO’s because they do not have the power to stand up to our govt. and demand to see it, which is more factual than the claim that our govt. would not conspire against us.
We are all ripe to be swayed by people that we admire. It is not above science to capitalize on this same, cheap tactic. Michael Shermer is a prime example of this.
Except for the simple problem, as we've been dicsussing, that there REALLY ARE NO FACTS to consider. Offering up your theories that thier COULD BE some, or that there are some it's just that they have been covered up leaves us where, exactly?
It leaves us without any facts.
Again, until there is something self evident to study, science is literally powerless.