>>41005889
How would you see them?
First, life on other planets orbiting other stars is very far away. Too far to see. The only way we see far away exoplanets is by measuring the difference in light when they pass in front of their suns. Since some of that light passes through their atmosphere we can make inferences about the composition thereof. The only thing we can see about their planets, if any of the exoplanets do have life, will therefore be a bump on a graph where certain spectra are not what is expected. However, science has already decided that every unexpected bump on a graph is explainable through volcanic action, unique planetary composition, and space dust.
Even if we did see evidence of life no one would know because scientists would find a way to reproduce those conditions with some convoluted physical process, then they claim that "the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is evidence that this evidence is not really evidence", then they rub their hands together and go back to leeching grant money while waging backroom wars against any and all scientists daring enough to claim "it's aliens!".
Take for instance BLC1, a signal from the direction of Proxima Centauri which has a clearly artificial signature. The reason scientists give for why this signal is not extraterrestrial: it exhibits too much artificiality. Yep, "earth radio equipment produces signatures like this so it can't be extraterrestrial". Scientists really do huff some potent copium when it comes to alien evidence denial.
But as soon as you see one clear case of extraordinary evidence that cannot be denied - then all of a sudden the massive backlog of real evidence that has already been gathered will suddenly be more likely to be extraterrestrial than not, since one piece of evidence that there is life elsewhere means their convoluted physics hypothesis gymnastics is the less likely solution. Once one thing is confirmed to be aliens, it's all likely aliens.
