Are skeptics approaching the UAP topic fairly when they demand physical proof or hard evidence of non-human involvement, as though that should be a prerequisite for even considering the possibility? Is that lack of extraordinary evidence grounds to ignore or dismiss the thousands of highly credible accounts that actually DO exist? Is that really how science operates: start with concrete proof and work backwards? Or perhaps the scientific approach to this specific kind of mystery is insufficient and physical evidence is only one means of uncovering the truth? Maybe scientists could learn a lot more from actual people, perhaps more so than all their precious instruments combined, if only they were willing to listen…