I've decided to not not decide whether real extraterrestrials have come to earth. I've not seen conclusive evidence one way or another. So I have no bases to decide on.

Besides, if the women in black can hide that the world is flat, how are we ever suppose to find out about aliens from another planet? Those WIB's hide the best secrets.

I'm not sure what could be conclusive evidence that they don't? An empty hangar without a spaceship in it? I mean, it would also be hard to provide conclusive evidence that the world is not in fact ruled by a secret conclave of santient shoes.

So, theories that "aliens" may be manipulative are a bridge too far?

I don't know that I believe in aliens -- or dimensional terrestrials -- at all, but I have read extensively on them... and should they be true, I have no problem entertaining the idea that they may be either dangerous or deceptive. Intellect is no gauge of either altruism, friendship, or straightforwardness (although many have tended to believe this as evidenced by their general acceptance of the ultra-wealthy -- who have access to information -- as "benevolent," "altruistic" "experts"). I think too...

... of an angry house cat. Certainly it is no match intellectually to a human, but an angry cat can make a human detour from his or her usual activities; the threat of violence is real. Usually dealing with such a problem comes -- if food or comforting the cat won't suffice -- with a level of deception -- maybe simply coaxing the cat beyond a door or barrier which can be closed?

If aliens are in fact from a distant world -- or from a place difficult to get to from our home -- would they value meeting a culture and civilization far inferior to theirs intellectually? Certainly they would be awed by a civilization far beyond their own technologically -- and possibly spiritually -- but from one "inferior?" Humans have had a hard enough time seeing their own as human... and in fact kingdoms were often based on hierarchies that left those toward the bottom as little more than "beasts."

If we do not have direct physical evidence, we must look at alien visitation as a psychological phenomenon (and a widespread one at that)... and the fact that so many claimed interactions with aliens have involved lying and deception (on behalf of the aliens) is intriguing IMO. It seems to mirror "clockwork elves" encountered by many in DMT "trips." IMO that would seem to suggest that humans have the capacity to both deceive themselves and to give a face to that deception. Applicable? Possibly.

If I was to accept that visitations are real and venture my own guess...

... I would tend to believe that "aliens" are not from space but dimensional and possibly terrestrial. I would also tend toward theories that humanity is an experiment.. and that "aliens" have interacted with us covertly -- and often -- over the last 6 - 10,000 years. Might we live in a giant alien petri dish? Certainly this gives the phenomenon a human-centric spin, but that is the only comfortable reason I can find that "aliens" would care about a species like our own without overtly enslaving us to advance their own directives (although some claim they have used "honey" to covertly do just this). I would also guess that some religions and secret societies have incorporated direct or indirect knowledge of these "aliens" into their writings and teachings.

IMHO it's folly to only consider what you know. It's important to consider all that you can imagine... then to prove and incorporate what you can.

My idea was more like that such lifeform was born in space, not in some planet (with its own atmosphere etc.). So space in itself would be its natural environment, not a planet.

Naturally it would need... something... to live on, so I am unsure if e.g. mere energy from suns would be enough for such lifeform to live on, or whatever else there would be in space that such a lifeform could "consume" in order to live, and multiply/reproduce, and whatever.

About how it would change its course in space, not sure... Travelling with solar winds? Farting to different directions in order to travel to the opposite direction? Hooking on any objects (asteroids or whatever) it can catch in space, and pushing itself to different directions from them?

Anyway, how it would manage to travel in space is not the main question, but whether it would be possible for a meaningful lifeform to live in space. We humans are dependent on our atmosphere (oxygen etc.) similarly like fish are dependent on water in order to live.

Farting around at Warp 9? Sounds like a modern Star Trek show!

I think other life in the universe is a no-brainer, but visiting here is highly unlikely. Not just the physics issues of light years, but also the fact they'd have no reason to do silent recognizance in atmosphere if they have that kind of technology.

Very good point. I would say you'd assume that a extraordinary claim was false till proven otherwise. So the onus to prove extraterrestrials would be on the person who thinks it's so.

Nah.

I believe the universe is probably teeming with life - the vast majority of it not sapient, but still tens of thousands of sapient forms of life out there but due to the scale of distances and time, physics barriers and so on, the likelihood of sapience meeting sapience is ridiculously small.

Any unidentified phenomena here or near Earth that could be sapient life is more likely to be terrestrial in nature. I'm more likely to believe we're being visited from deep ocean dwellings species that have avoided devastating surface disasters for millions of years, than sapient life developing elsewhere and lasting long enough to make it's way to us either delibeatrely or by chance.

Happy to be proven wrong on this, in fact, I truly welcome it. Bring on the aliens!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If not more than extraordinary.

I know it is a phrase popularised by Karl Sagan, but it is, if you look at it, a bit silly. Any claim needs evidence, and evidence is evidence. What matters is the validity and sterenght of evidence to draw the conclusion as being more likely than other conclusions.

The problem with this statement is that it is very unclear what is meant by "extraordinary evidence", and what the standard should be. Sagan has said that the statement should be taken as a variation of Occam's Razor, i.e. that the simples sulotin is motly likely the correct one.

Personally i prefer Hitchens Razor "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",

I have seen a few ones lazing on the streets , wonder how they get over the fence :O

Subspace probably doesn't even exist.

LInear subspace or are you looking for a new Dom

space doesnt eighter