“Could” seems to cover a very wide range of probabilities. The tricky question is, is there a probability > 0.0 that is consistent with “could not”. If not, then “could” does not really impart much information.
Okay...and?<p>1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.<p>2. What could we do about it, if true?<p>3. Oumuamua being an alien spaceship was the plot of Arthur C. Clarke's <i>Rendezvous With Rama</i>. I think that possibility has been widely considered, and if it's true there should be two more coming along shortly.
The Pentagon official is head of UFO office, and Avi Loeb is collaborator.<p>I can’t tell if news and public can’t handle speculation, or if authors believe in their speculation. Authors need to be better about telling reporters what is speculation, and act like they don’t believe speculation.
<i>Could an alien mothership be hovering around the solar system, sending out tiny probes to explore planets? According to a Harvard scientist and a Pentagon official, it’s possible. </i><p>Anything is possible. This is like the Russell Teapot thought experiment.
I don't understand how our very expensive jets don't have long range HD cameras on them to film all these probes.<p>Why is every video they release some fuzzy radar. One former jet pilot I saw recently said the probes would fly right through their formations. This was real recent so the pilots could have their own cell cameras and release after they are out of the military.