Science is a model, it is not reality itself. All of physics is well understood to be ultimately incorrect. It isn't completely incorrect, as in, it is useful, but each model is only useful within its domain. Outside of a small domain all bets are off, and in many cases it is proven incorrect outside of it's domain (e.g. Newton's Mechanics is useless on measurements both sufficiently small and large).

In addition, there are numerous cases of "evidence" that are proven fraudulent. Look into the QED measurement fiasco for example. For 80 years there has been known fraud in QED measurements (specifically purposefully false reports of measurement between different experiments). I spent years learning about QM and physics in general. I had more than a dozen classes in QM or related classes (QM, QED, high energy physics, etc.). I read double or triple that in books on the topic and uncountable papers. In EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the only thing I ever heard about measurements on the experiments using the QED model is that it was the "best and most accurate model ever created." And it turns out, there were numerous issues with those "accuracies," with mostly uncorroborated experiments and known and documented frauds.

And not a single teacher, lecture, book, or paper ever told me about a single one of the proven problems. Instead they laud the very issues that were previously known to be fraudulent. I suggest most, and probably all, of those teachers, lectures, etc. didn't know about the issues themselves, rather parroting what they have been told, just as had been done to them. A long history of perpetuating the same lie through the academic mythology.

That doesn't address the issue that QED itself is a ludicrous model. I thought it was ludicrous when I learned it. My teachers said it. Books say it. The concepts and methodology of renormalization itself is absolutely bonkers. Look at what Feynman, the main (or at least the most vocal) creator of the model, had to say about it. We teach it because it is useful, but it is provably not true. In other words, there is almost certainly a better way to model the same phenomena, but we are pushed to never look at a better model, because "QED is the best model ever." Why? I suggest there is a very good reason for it, and it is not organic.

You seem to, like so many others, confuse usefulness with truth. From my investigation, there are numerous such provable frauds, but the biggest fuckery in what is intentionally left out. I.e., the models are useful, but better models would be more useful. We don't look at other better models, and that looking is not organic.

In some cases, instead of looking at better models (new and previous), we are encouraged to extend our "mainstream" models outside of their intended domain of usefulness. We often unquestionably believe that our models can be applied for phenomena that doesn't quite fit, and when it doesn't fit, we say it doesn't exist despite the evidence. We are strongly discouraged, and in some cases, even legally prohibited, from performing experiments that don't fit the "previously established" phenomenology, insisting that phenomena fits the models or "it's not reality". Those "illegal" phenomena are relegated to black ops instead of academia, or called "pseudoscience" by the science reporting systems, while at the same time paying billions in research on it.

I can show, without a reasonable doubt, that all of those "discouragements" and "laws" that keep scientists from exploring "aberrant phenomena" are strictly controlled by the same entity I have been discussing.

What "evidence"? Write a book. Spell it out.

I have. It linked it above. The first book exposes the "entity." The next, 99% done, shows how they created and control Education, Science, and Medicine. I hope to get it out soon.

Either we have working technology and the ideas behind that are correct and workable by demonstration, or....what?

The most potent lies are completely true, just not the complete truth. We know our models work. We know the scope in which they work. So many assume that the models are "complete enough." The evidence suggests they are not. If you believe the models are sufficient while at the same time believing the science documentation which is strictly controlled by the same entity, you are perpetuating the fraud and acting as Controlled Opposition, knowingly or not.