Elon Musk: I don't see any evidence of aliens.

Musk elaborated on why he doesn't believe aliens have visited our planet, stating that, even with the thousands of broadband spacecraft that SpaceX operates in low Earth orbit, he hasn't once seen any compelling evidence of either extraterrestrial life or any potential craft operated by non-human intelligence.

"I've not seen any evidence of aliens," Musk said. "And SpaceX, with the Starlink constellation, has roughly 6,000 satellites, and not once have we had to maneuver around a UFO. [...] Never. So I'm like, okay, I don't see any evidence of aliens."

https://www.space.com/elon-musk-ufos-ali...e-starlink

This seems more like a plug by Musk for his own company than a real argument? I say that as someone who agrees that it feels rather unlikely there are alien vehicles traveling through space to get here.

Just gonna post this again ->

00:00 Introduction

01:47 Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World

05:28 The Trump Objection

13:43 The 'Too Many People' Objection

22:47 The Crash Objection

33:50 The Distance Objection

47:39 The Geography Objection

54:48 The Skeptic Community

1:02:05 The Historical Objection

1:16:01 The Motivation Objection

1:38:19 The Low Priors Objection

1:54:43 The Illusion Objection

2:03:27 The Psychoanalysis Objection

2:15:00 Conclusion

2:18:00 Goodbyes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crg67I276iU

The real objection, of course, is that traveling between stars isn't feasible without spending thousands of years on the voyage. This effectively rules out the idea of extraterrestrials. If anything were to fly to here from a nearby starsystem it would have to be minuscule accelerated by a laserbeam and not a “big honking mothership” as claimed by those two star-wars inspired individuals in the so called “debunking” sceptics video. I understand a generation having grown up with movies thinks an interstellar ship needs to be big, but bigger mass will only add to the infeasibility of the task.

Nonetheless, I think Musk's argument holds merit. These supposedly drunk and high aliens, flying through space and crashing into the American desert, could just as easily collide with a satellite or two during their erratic descent. Each of the 6,000 Starlink satellites, part of an ever-growing network, is equipped with sensors, software, and thrusters to avoid collisions with space debris, UFOs, and whatever else might be flying out there, effectively creating a huge network of low-Earth orbit surveillance data.

...but sadly the evidence isn't there!

The real objection, of course, is that traveling between stars isn't feasible without spending thousands of years on the voyage. This effectively rules out the idea of extraterrestrials. If anything were to fly to here from a nearby starsystem it would have to be minuscule accelerated by a laserbeam and not a “big honking mothership” as claimed by those two star-wars inspired individuals in the so called “debunking” sceptics video. I understand a generation having grown up with movies thinks an interstellar ship needs to be big, but bigger mass will only add to the infeasibility of the task.

Nonetheless, I think Musk's argument holds merit. These supposedly drunk and high aliens, flying through space and crashing into the American desert, could just as easily collide with a satellite or two during their erratic descent. Each of the 6,000 Starlink satellites, part of an ever-growing network, is equipped with sensors, software, and thrusters to avoid collisions with space debris, UFOs, and whatever else might be flying out there, effectively creating a huge network of low-Earth orbit surveillance data.

Have you considered the obvious possibility that extraterrestrial UFO vehicle visitors may have just relatively recently discontinued their visits since we started to put great numbers of satellites and associated "space junk" into orbit? During most of the long period of classic UFO sightings there were no or very few such safety obstacles to incoming spaceships.

The real objection, of course, is that traveling between stars isn't feasible without spending thousands of years on the voyage. This effectively rules out the idea of extraterrestrials. If anything were to fly to here from a nearby starsystem it would have to be minuscule accelerated by a laserbeam and not a “big honking mothership” as claimed by those two star-wars inspired individuals in the so called “debunking” sceptics video. I understand a generation having grown up with movies thinks an interstellar ship needs to be big, but bigger mass will only add to the infeasibility of the task.

Nonetheless, I think Musk's argument holds merit. These supposedly drunk and high aliens, flying through space and crashing into the American desert, could just as easily collide with a satellite or two during their erratic descent. Each of the 6,000 Starlink satellites, part of an ever-growing network, is equipped with sensors, software, and thrusters to avoid collisions with space debris, UFOs, and whatever else might be flying out there, effectively creating a huge network of low-Earth orbit surveillance data.

Have you watched the video I posted?

The real objection, of course, is that traveling between stars isn't feasible without spending thousands of years on the voyage. This effectively rules out the idea of extraterrestrials. If anything were to fly to here from a nearby starsystem it would have to be minuscule accelerated by a laserbeam and not a “big honking mothership” as claimed by those two star-wars inspired individuals in the so called “debunking” sceptics video. I understand a generation having grown up with movies thinks an interstellar ship needs to be big, but bigger mass will only add to the infeasibility of the task.

Nonetheless, I think Musk's argument holds merit. These supposedly drunk and high aliens, flying through space and crashing into the American desert, could just as easily collide with a satellite or two during their erratic descent. Each of the 6,000 Starlink satellites, part of an ever-growing network, is equipped with sensors, software, and thrusters to avoid collisions with space debris, UFOs, and whatever else might be flying out there, effectively creating a huge network of low-Earth orbit surveillance data.

Isn't this just an argument of incredulity after you boil it down?

Your argument presupposes constraints that are subjective: that star travel takes thousands of years, that more mass = greater infeasibility, that Musk's tech is sufficient to detect aliens.  These are subjective because the argument presumes our current understanding of physics is completely explanatory.  They aren't, as we all know, and there's a certain amount of irony in all this considering the state of cosmological physics at present.

This does not strengthen the claims (for aliens) of course.

Isn't this just an argument of incredulity after you boil it down?

Your argument presupposes constraints that are subjective: that star travel takes thousands of years, that more mass = greater infeasibility, that Musk's tech is sufficient to detect aliens.  These are subjective because the argument presumes our current understanding of physics is completely explanatory.  They aren't, as we all know, and there's a certain amount of irony in all this considering the state of cosmological physics at present.

This does not strengthen the claims (for aliens) of course.

Do we work logic on the basis of what we know or on wild speculation?  Purple goblins might have stolen my fairydust.  Any argument against  presupposes constraints that are subjective.

Do we work logic on the basis of what we know or on wild speculation?  Purple goblins might have stolen my fairydust.  Any argument against  presupposes constraints that are subjective.

But does anyone have any reason to believe you possessed fairy dust or that goblins stole it?

I think the difference here is that there are witnesses of objects that seem to be craft. Personally I don't believe extraterrestrials have come here, and even the possibility of interdimensional "ultra-terrestrials" coming in vehicles is unconvincing...

But I do think the fact that witness reports speak of supposed craft puts it above claims of fairy dust. Similarly there are figures that different people have claimed had some transcendent/supernatural status, for example to pick one far removed from today's religions/politics:

Most divine Master . . . a rumor has reached us through your servants that when you [Iamblichus] pray to the gods you levitate from the earth more than ten cubits; that your body and clothes change to a beautiful golden hue; and when your prayer is ended your body becomes as it was before you prayed and you come down to earth and associate with us.

• Eunapius, The Lives of the Philosophers
  

Now was Iamblichus really [able] to do any of this? No idea, but my understanding is most historians at least think he was a real person. That to me is different than insisting someone like the Scorpion King from the Mummy movies existed in some ancient time?