Yeah but you just need to think about what we look like and how we came about and look at the combination of things that helped (distance to the star, liquid water bombardment, moon regulation, Jupiter protection, time) to feel it's very unlikely there isn't just one other planet with these and at least cockroaches: that's enough to say we're not alone.
And finding these alien cockroaches even if it take millions of years of travel, would still change everything. To see another life, you imagine ? We need to try. I know they re trying to build telescope with enough resolution to see seasonal color changes in tree leaves from here, that would be really cool.
Two possibilities exist: either aliens can reach us or they cannot. If they cannot, it's sad. If they can, they are already so advanced that they need nothing from a small blue speck of dust in the vast Space that we call Earth.
If they're that advanced, they might not even consider us to be intelligent by their standards. To them, we might appear as an ant on the sidewalk would appear to us. And as such, they might not even notice if they accidentally step on us.
There are decent arguments (though I’m not fully convinced) that human intelligence is in fact general and that there can be no agent X such that X’s intelligence is to human intelligence as human intelligence is to ant intelligence.
Even if that were the case, there could be intelligences which think so quickly that humans are still slow fools by comparison. Particularly since we know of many limits to human intelligence. For example, humans can only truly think of a couple hundred different individuals as persons, instead of just examples of the general concept of people. That's why ten people dying in a three car pileup don't make you ten times as sad as one person being hit by a car. See also, the monkeysphere or Pak Protectors. Humans also have limits in relational comprehension. For example, you can know, and he can know that you know, and she can know that he knows that you know, and I can sort of know how she knows that he knows that you know, but somewhere around there it breaks down for a human mind.
I agree with that, although I think it boils down to the fact that even if human intelligence is general there is still no limit (other than the laws of physics) to how much more technologically advanced another species could be. If we believe that human intelligence is general, then we could still increase our speed and abilities with technology—we already do this with things like a pen and paper, computers, cultural ideas about collaboration, etc. I certainly think it's possible that human intelligence is general but that our total computational and creative power is so incredibly tiny compared to another species with general intelligence that the other species may not care much about our wellbeing.
Care to list some or maybe link some literature? It's certainly an interesting argument to make, that's for sure!
That said, if there were an intelligence at the scale of a planet (just a thought experiment, maybe like the "Planetary AC" in The Last Question by Isaac Asimov: https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html), i doubt they'd see us as much more than mold, which we'd find on a loaf of bread ourselves.
I'm highly skeptical of this argument. e.g. I don't think humans avoid killing certain species because of their intelligence relative to us, but rather some more absolute scale (e.g. feels pain, or passes the dot test, etc.)
What's more common is just pure aggression or selfishness
The absolute scale for other species is more like "is a pet" vs "is not a pet". Humans kill other humans without too much hesitation if they can convince themselves that those other humans are sufficiently different from their in-group.
I doubt they would "step", because what "step" would mean here? Blow up Earth? But there are so much more readily available asteroids that it's not even worth messing up with planets.
On the other hand, ants are interesting, just for curiosity. We can certainly amuse and entertain, just like ants do, and we can afford leaving alone their nests, just because they don't really bother us.
But if we mean stepping on a single ant, not all the ants, then it's certainly possible aliens could kill a few humans inadvertently.
You would think if other advanced life existed in abundance that many of them were civilizations that started billions of years ago. If they still can't reach us - that probably means that civilizations self-destruct at a certain point or stuck in an area to be eaten by the stars there. That would likely be our fate too if it turns out moving from solar system to solar system is extremely hard.
Simple explanation is why nobody travels to the stars is that it’s extremely expensive and very useless: you can’t really exist without biome, and building out compatible biome at the far star is very, very hard.
I can argue it's not really that hard. We can even experiment right now to recreate it on Mars, or on Earth with Mars-like conditions (it's certainly much easier to colonize Antarctic than Mars).
Just create big hermetic container, and put there minerals, bacteria and fungi. Heck, people even do it at home with big sealed glass bottles.
No need to bring living biome. Just bring spores, seeds, sperm and eggs.
(As it stands now) It is a multi-generation trip. These humans need to live somewhere and eat something, thus it's logical choice just to ship biome with them. Additional advantage is that error-prone 'boot' process to built up new biome at destination is eliminated.
But this is not the main point. It's still extremely expensive. Imagine that world GDP needs to be taken for few years just to build single ship. Who would agree to that in democratic society?
If they can reach us then we face an insurmountable existential threat from without. If they cannot reach us then we face an insurmountable existential threat from within.
If they are super advanced they dont have to able to physically reach us to do serious damage. Just a targeted Gamma-Ray-Burst would do a great damage & we wont see it coming either.
>Even if we assume that aliens have our exact mentality, we figured out to not genocide the Sentinelese. Why the aliens can't figure out as much?
There is a kinship bond within members of the same species, although it isn't universal. As John Donne said, "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." We're human and the Sentinelese are human, and even though we're not genociding them (mostly, I think, because they have nothing worth killing over otherwise they would have been dead a long time ago,) we're still genociding plenty of other fellow humans. We even avoid killing animals to extinction because humans share and suffer the consequences of living in a complex ecosystem with other beings. But we also cut the fins off of sharks for soup and throw them back into the water to drown.
But none of those connections would exist between aliens and humans. We're not one of them, nor do we share the same biome, so our deaths might well be entirely void of meaning or consequence for them. In a Dark Forest scenario, there's little to no advantage to contact or cooperation with an alien species, and every possible advantage in sending a GRB to fry anything that so much as looks like life before it has a chance to evolve into a threat.
Sentinelese are worth killing per the Dark Forest logic: they are aggressive and have incentive to kill you, so you must kill them before they even get a chance to kill you. Notice how this logic doesn't differentiate between humans and aliens: self preservation overrides whatever compassion you might have.
>But none of those connections would exist between aliens and humans.
That's exactly why humans are more worth killing than aliens: we have conflict of interests with humans but not with aliens.
>We're not one of them, nor do we share the same biome, so our deaths might well be entirely void of meaning or consequence for them.
If the Sentinelese disappear, the biome will likely become only more rich.
Would you really want to stake our entire species (& biosphere's) fate on that piece of logic? even if you do I dont think any of the current world leaders ( & about 50% of developed world population) would.
at the very least it would be a strong reason to go build the biggest space shield and hold it between this planet and earth while we figure out the rest. Anything short of that would be incredibly naive.
You seemingly assume that dark forest is a safe strategy. But if you position yourself as a dark forester, you send a message that you're aggressive and dangerous (dark forest is a projection obviously). The only case when this can go well is when we're alone, but in that case it makes no sense to play dark forest.
Because we can only frame things in our own view. If an alien species was that advanced, then they would either want to help us evolve to a point we were passive (which we currently are very much not) or destroy us. And to clarify by "passive" I mean becoming a species that finds a way to co-exist with other "apex predators". Our current modus operandi is that we eliminate anything that poses a serious threat to our ability to do what we want when we want with 0 repercussions.
See: lions, tigers, bears, wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, etc. anywhere that humans have a meaningful presence.
Your argument vastly underestimates size of the Space and the amount of goods in it.
I firmly believe that the third option will take place: "no one needs to bother". Why bother destroying some little tiny pale blue dot, if your sky is literally filled with them and you can't even count them?
We're so focused and enclosed our minds on our precious Earth, that we laughably think is so big and valuable.
The aspect to me, that doesn't involve the traditional alien race destroys humanity, is an idea I heard in an astrophysics podcast. It is still pretty terrifying although I guess more sad.
An advanced aliens visited the earth hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago, extracted all of the rare compound that allows for their ability to have such an advanced society capable of traveling such distances and just left. We are purposefully being ignored since it is known to the galaxy/universe that we have no way of effectively reaching or communicating with other advanced civilizations.
All of the useful material was extracted so no advanced alien civilizations even have a reason to come and visit.
>If they can, they are already so advanced that they need nothing from a small blue speck of dust in the vast Space that we call Earth.
Looking back historically, many of the European powers of the 1500s-1800s were literally millennia ahead of the people they colonised in terms of technological prowess.
In spite of this, indigenous ideas, beliefs and culture still had an influence on the Europeans (and if it weren't for the attitudes of the time that influence would be much greater and we'd be all the better for it).
I wouldn't be surprised if Aliens with advanced technology discovering Earth found the same thing.
>Looking back historically, many of the European powers of the 1500s-1800s were literally millennia ahead of the people they colonised in terms of technological prowess.
I don't think this is true. India was colonized, and it had very comparable technology - perhaps 50 or 100 years behind. There are cases of very primative people being colonised of course, but often the capabilities of other civilisations are minimised in our history - for example north american natives are seen as hunter gatherers whereas there was extensive farming and land exploitation in many places in the USA - along with pottery and settled living.
OK, perhaps I could have been a little bit more precise with my language, given this is HN, but the overall point still stands.
We have hands-on experience as a species with technologically primitive societies being discovered by technologically advanced societies and going on to influence language and philosophy.
Given this, I don't think it's a given that an advanced alien race would look at us as not worth their time.
European colonizers needed resources (gold, food) and territory. But that's because we have limited supply here on Earth. But in outer space, both are abundant, e.g. it's much easier to mine water or gold out of comets and asteroids, than lifting it up from a planet. If aliens are so advanced, it literally costs nothing to them to choose any other planes on the sky.
Traditionally, the second one is viewed as terrifying because an alien race may see us as a potential future threat. In a lot of science fiction, they see some violent/awful news from Earth indicating that we're monsters, and decide that it would be better to go ahead and exterminate us before we can do unto others as we do unto ourselves.
So the thinking is less that we're a threat to them now (if they can get here, we certainly are not), but some intelligent beings may look at how we have treated one another over the last few centuries/millennia and decide that they don't want us (or any self-replicating machines we happen to plop out) roaming/colonizing/populating/enslaving/murdering/reeducating the galaxy.
Third possibility: we're not alone in the universe but there's nobody close enough to talk to. If you really can't go faster than light, that's the most likely possibility.
I find the idea that we're alone depressing and even more reason to worry about our future. If we're the universe's only shot at recording/appreciating/exploring/colonizing it, and we blow that shot, that seems like an incredible waste.
If we are the first ever, it can happen again. And the universe doesn’t know waste from utility anymore than we can judge who is correct about time-well-spent. We are all independent observers, and to something as long and uncaring as the universe, things just are.
Becoming comfortable with death was a multi year process for me. But one thing that helped was considering the universe and how time is not treated the way the human mind does.
If we're alone, I'd expect it to be because of our youth. Until the time of the solar system's creation, heavy elements really weren't that common. It would be surprising, but not crazy, if we were the first.
It's sort of an interesting problem from a purely inferential perspective: for most problems, if you want to estimate the probability of X, you just go observe and see how often X appears.
The reason is because we doubt our observational ability. So then the question becomes "is the zero because nothing is out there, or because we can't observe it?"
I guess it's interesting to me because it's a salient case of where our confidence in inferential paradigms breaks down in a very obvious way. Either that, or we are uncomfortable with its implications. Or both.
This problem also exists in manufacturing. If you make 1,000,000 widgets and randomly sample 1,000 for quality control, how can you be sure if your processes are reliable if all of the samples pass inspection.
Luckily with most physical processes, you can assume it's >0 and go about some estimations using your linked article (a very basic one is rule of 3[0]). This particular problem where 0 vs >0 is seems impossible to make an actual inference about until some piece of data tells us it's >0.
We flipped a coin, and it ended up being heads (just us), meh... Nothing more to it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf I believe the TLDR of that is, if you monte carlo the drake equation, and account for the uncertainty of the error margins, you don't really end up with much of a paradox.
There is a theory of bubble universes triggering creation of new universes.
In that model a randomly sampled universe is relatively young, resulting in probability that you are born in that universe very high, which in turn results in high probability of being the early civilisation in that universe.
But more down to earth, is just looking at how intelligence evolved on earth. The intelligence evolved on top of the primitive survival mechanism. Mechanisms that promote violence and cheating. Those are keeping us back like a chain and ball from evolving as a civilisation, as a matter of fact we already nearly wiped ourselves few times. We are at the brink or civilisation collapse due to global warming and yet do almost nothing about it.
If we are average civilisation then those are short lived violent affairs that tear themselves to pieces before they can self sustain, or make any impact on the universe to be noticed by others.
The Drake equation is not something for which someone searches for a "solution". At the current state of our civilization, most terms can only be estimated. For now, the equation is simply a Fermi problem and could be stated in many other forms.
It is actually pretty easy to see why we don't find evidence of galaxy-spanning civilization.
Civilizations may be presumed to arise often enough. They sort more-or-less neatly into sedentary and expansionist bins. Statistically, the former are much older, and thus may be presumed to have, typically, access to much more mature technology. The latter are, statistically, young. Sooner or later any of the latter will seek to engulf one of the former, and be destroyed by its superior, mature tech--if not the first time, then the second, or nth time. Odds are, then, that an expansionist civilization has a fatal encounter with a sedentary before it gets to us, and is curtailed. This leaves the galaxy filled with ancient sedentary civilizations disinclined, by definition, to visit us, and random small, young, short-lived empires with curtailed reach.
> we should see some traces of activity from afar.
There is no reason to think that. Even a nuclear war of epic proportions would be a mere spark against the incandescent floodlights of the stars.
Additionally, our own technological advancement suggests that miniaturisation, nanotech, and efficiency are the direction long-term, not mega-projects.
"Engulf" is a radically different process from "expedition", so this is not responsive.
In just a few years, telescopes in space with coordinated mirrors miles apart will have the resolution to see details at interstellar distance. Until then, anything going on even quite nearby would be vanishingly unlikely to be picked up.
People from someplace it takes years to get here from reveal themselves (only) by playing games with US naval fleet training exercises?
Not even close to passing the smell test. Even Lovecraft's benthic Deep Ones from Y'ha-nthlei [0] are a more plausible explanation. At least They have some reason to care about boats putt-putting around the continental shelf.
Even on earth we have interactions between explorers and natives that have been confusing.maybe they want us to know we are there but don't want to scare us. Maybe they aren't wise and organized govts but some random person from an advanced spacefaring civilization. We don't know if the us or chia or Russia developed something new. It's not inconceivable it could be aliens.
The fact that navy and airforce just ignores it shows you its not a 'thing'.
If those UFOs were actual generations leap ahead aircrafts, US army would be freaking out that chinese/russia have achieved air superiority - but why the fuck would chinese or russia show them the upper hand??
Why are those only spotted off US coast near US carriers?
If it were aliens why are they not avoiding the only place on earth where they get spotted, instead they insist flying around only there doing essentially nothing.
They don’t ignore it, they have an active team in pentagon constantly researching this and have also launched an active taskforce to start tracking it [0]
> Why are they only spotted off US coast near US carriers
They are not, they have been both spotted and disclosed by US, China, Russia, France, you can look it up.
> If it were aliens why are they not avoiding the only place on earth where they get spotted
UAP sightings have been reported across the world since decades.
Neither the navy nor the airforce ignores it,
They just are quite in public, does the navy scream on tv panicking every time, something military critical happens ?
I’m not trying to convince you,
You stated certain things and I only gave counterarguments since I felt some of them were wrong/outdated in terms of current context (idc about aliens, I’m talking about the part, where you state neither navy nor airforce cares about existence of this tech)
You dont have to take the word of this tabloid, pick any news site you favor and read it from there, this was featured by all major sites.
If seeing a link’s fqdn makes your brain put an entire conversation into trashbin, then thats an issue of your brain, not the link. Do you always trash information featured across multiple sources just because you hate one source ?
Nvm tho,
Its a waste of time, all the information is laid plane in sight, what you believe in, after that is on you.
90 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] thread> Yeah, we're definitely alone.
And finding these alien cockroaches even if it take millions of years of travel, would still change everything. To see another life, you imagine ? We need to try. I know they re trying to build telescope with enough resolution to see seasonal color changes in tree leaves from here, that would be really cool.
This is a known issue that archive.is (and its variants) block cloudflare [1][2]
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317#19828702
2: https://twitter.com/archiveis/status/1018691421182791680
Two possibilities exist: either aliens can reach us or they cannot. If they cannot, it's sad. If they can, they are already so advanced that they need nothing from a small blue speck of dust in the vast Space that we call Earth.
Having said that intelligence and curiosity go hand in hand, hard to imagine them not being somewhat interested in the specs.
That said, if there were an intelligence at the scale of a planet (just a thought experiment, maybe like the "Planetary AC" in The Last Question by Isaac Asimov: https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html), i doubt they'd see us as much more than mold, which we'd find on a loaf of bread ourselves.
What's more common is just pure aggression or selfishness
On the other hand, ants are interesting, just for curiosity. We can certainly amuse and entertain, just like ants do, and we can afford leaving alone their nests, just because they don't really bother us.
But if we mean stepping on a single ant, not all the ants, then it's certainly possible aliens could kill a few humans inadvertently.
Just create big hermetic container, and put there minerals, bacteria and fungi. Heck, people even do it at home with big sealed glass bottles.
No need to bring living biome. Just bring spores, seeds, sperm and eggs.
But this is not the main point. It's still extremely expensive. Imagine that world GDP needs to be taken for few years just to build single ship. Who would agree to that in democratic society?
There is a kinship bond within members of the same species, although it isn't universal. As John Donne said, "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." We're human and the Sentinelese are human, and even though we're not genociding them (mostly, I think, because they have nothing worth killing over otherwise they would have been dead a long time ago,) we're still genociding plenty of other fellow humans. We even avoid killing animals to extinction because humans share and suffer the consequences of living in a complex ecosystem with other beings. But we also cut the fins off of sharks for soup and throw them back into the water to drown.
But none of those connections would exist between aliens and humans. We're not one of them, nor do we share the same biome, so our deaths might well be entirely void of meaning or consequence for them. In a Dark Forest scenario, there's little to no advantage to contact or cooperation with an alien species, and every possible advantage in sending a GRB to fry anything that so much as looks like life before it has a chance to evolve into a threat.
>But none of those connections would exist between aliens and humans.
That's exactly why humans are more worth killing than aliens: we have conflict of interests with humans but not with aliens.
>We're not one of them, nor do we share the same biome, so our deaths might well be entirely void of meaning or consequence for them.
If the Sentinelese disappear, the biome will likely become only more rich.
at the very least it would be a strong reason to go build the biggest space shield and hold it between this planet and earth while we figure out the rest. Anything short of that would be incredibly naive.
See: lions, tigers, bears, wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, etc. anywhere that humans have a meaningful presence.
Your argument vastly underestimates size of the Space and the amount of goods in it.
I firmly believe that the third option will take place: "no one needs to bother". Why bother destroying some little tiny pale blue dot, if your sky is literally filled with them and you can't even count them?
We're so focused and enclosed our minds on our precious Earth, that we laughably think is so big and valuable.
The aspect to me, that doesn't involve the traditional alien race destroys humanity, is an idea I heard in an astrophysics podcast. It is still pretty terrifying although I guess more sad.
An advanced aliens visited the earth hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago, extracted all of the rare compound that allows for their ability to have such an advanced society capable of traveling such distances and just left. We are purposefully being ignored since it is known to the galaxy/universe that we have no way of effectively reaching or communicating with other advanced civilizations.
All of the useful material was extracted so no advanced alien civilizations even have a reason to come and visit.
Unless, of course, we turn out to be a delicious delicacy
Looking back historically, many of the European powers of the 1500s-1800s were literally millennia ahead of the people they colonised in terms of technological prowess.
In spite of this, indigenous ideas, beliefs and culture still had an influence on the Europeans (and if it weren't for the attitudes of the time that influence would be much greater and we'd be all the better for it).
I wouldn't be surprised if Aliens with advanced technology discovering Earth found the same thing.
I don't think this is true. India was colonized, and it had very comparable technology - perhaps 50 or 100 years behind. There are cases of very primative people being colonised of course, but often the capabilities of other civilisations are minimised in our history - for example north american natives are seen as hunter gatherers whereas there was extensive farming and land exploitation in many places in the USA - along with pottery and settled living.
We have hands-on experience as a species with technologically primitive societies being discovered by technologically advanced societies and going on to influence language and philosophy.
Given this, I don't think it's a given that an advanced alien race would look at us as not worth their time.
So the thinking is less that we're a threat to them now (if they can get here, we certainly are not), but some intelligent beings may look at how we have treated one another over the last few centuries/millennia and decide that they don't want us (or any self-replicating machines we happen to plop out) roaming/colonizing/populating/enslaving/murdering/reeducating the galaxy.
Becoming comfortable with death was a multi year process for me. But one thing that helped was considering the universe and how time is not treated the way the human mind does.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ancient_humanoid
The speech seemed very sad in a way.
There's issues about the estimate to place with zero observations from a sample (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession), but basically you'd have 0 or some very small number.
So why don't we just take it as 0, or ϵ?
The reason is because we doubt our observational ability. So then the question becomes "is the zero because nothing is out there, or because we can't observe it?"
I guess it's interesting to me because it's a salient case of where our confidence in inferential paradigms breaks down in a very obvious way. Either that, or we are uncomfortable with its implications. Or both.
Luckily with most physical processes, you can assume it's >0 and go about some estimations using your linked article (a very basic one is rule of 3[0]). This particular problem where 0 vs >0 is seems impossible to make an actual inference about until some piece of data tells us it's >0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(statistics)
In that model a randomly sampled universe is relatively young, resulting in probability that you are born in that universe very high, which in turn results in high probability of being the early civilisation in that universe.
But more down to earth, is just looking at how intelligence evolved on earth. The intelligence evolved on top of the primitive survival mechanism. Mechanisms that promote violence and cheating. Those are keeping us back like a chain and ball from evolving as a civilisation, as a matter of fact we already nearly wiped ourselves few times. We are at the brink or civilisation collapse due to global warming and yet do almost nothing about it.
If we are average civilisation then those are short lived violent affairs that tear themselves to pieces before they can self sustain, or make any impact on the universe to be noticed by others.
Or, you know, they want to communicate.
Civilizations may be presumed to arise often enough. They sort more-or-less neatly into sedentary and expansionist bins. Statistically, the former are much older, and thus may be presumed to have, typically, access to much more mature technology. The latter are, statistically, young. Sooner or later any of the latter will seek to engulf one of the former, and be destroyed by its superior, mature tech--if not the first time, then the second, or nth time. Odds are, then, that an expansionist civilization has a fatal encounter with a sedentary before it gets to us, and is curtailed. This leaves the galaxy filled with ancient sedentary civilizations disinclined, by definition, to visit us, and random small, young, short-lived empires with curtailed reach.
They don't need to visit us, we should see some traces of activity from afar.
There is no reason to think that. Even a nuclear war of epic proportions would be a mere spark against the incandescent floodlights of the stars.
Additionally, our own technological advancement suggests that miniaturisation, nanotech, and efficiency are the direction long-term, not mega-projects.
In just a few years, telescopes in space with coordinated mirrors miles apart will have the resolution to see details at interstellar distance. Until then, anything going on even quite nearby would be vanishingly unlikely to be picked up.
But Bill Nelson, nasa’s current presiding officer stating that they have high conviction of having spotted advanced extraterrestrial life on earth.
Is good evidence
[Bill Nelson’s speech](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mMQBe_XMjNU)
[Who Bill Nelson is](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-administrator-bill-nelson/)
Not even close to passing the smell test. Even Lovecraft's benthic Deep Ones from Y'ha-nthlei [0] are a more plausible explanation. At least They have some reason to care about boats putt-putting around the continental shelf.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_One
Both Nasa and Pentagon has publicly hinted about it since last year’s disclosure mandate from congress.
Bill Nelson, nasa’s current presiding officer has stated that they have high conviction of having spotted advanced extraterrestrial life on earth.
[Bill Nelson’s speech](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mMQBe_XMjNU)
[Who Bill Nelson is](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-administrator-bill-nelson/)
The fact that navy and airforce just ignores it shows you its not a 'thing'.
If those UFOs were actual generations leap ahead aircrafts, US army would be freaking out that chinese/russia have achieved air superiority - but why the fuck would chinese or russia show them the upper hand??
Why are those only spotted off US coast near US carriers?
If it were aliens why are they not avoiding the only place on earth where they get spotted, instead they insist flying around only there doing essentially nothing.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
They don’t ignore it, they have an active team in pentagon constantly researching this and have also launched an active taskforce to start tracking it [0]
> Why are they only spotted off US coast near US carriers
They are not, they have been both spotted and disclosed by US, China, Russia, France, you can look it up.
> If it were aliens why are they not avoiding the only place on earth where they get spotted
UAP sightings have been reported across the world since decades.
Neither the navy nor the airforce ignores it, They just are quite in public, does the navy scream on tv panicking every time, something military critical happens ?
[0](https://www.the-sun.com/news/4134917/pentagon-launch-ufo-tas...)
When trying to convince someone dont include a tabloid as your source. When I see it my brain automatically moves whole conversation into trashbin
You dont have to take the word of this tabloid, pick any news site you favor and read it from there, this was featured by all major sites.
If seeing a link’s fqdn makes your brain put an entire conversation into trashbin, then thats an issue of your brain, not the link. Do you always trash information featured across multiple sources just because you hate one source ?
Nvm tho, Its a waste of time, all the information is laid plane in sight, what you believe in, after that is on you.