This isn’t a joke, but a metaphor to illustrate a particular question:
Are UFOs present in areas where people aren’t?
A UFO sighting consists of two parts, the object that was observed and the witness who observed it. How might this relationship have affected our understanding of the behaviours and presence of anomalous UFOs?
Have we adopted a visual confirmation bias, to the exclusion of areas without witnesses present to report UFOs?
Around 83% of the terrestrial biosphere is under direct influence by humans. This leaves 17% of the terrestrial biome and the majority of the aquatic biome unaffected – a good percentage of the globe without potential witnesses to observe and report UFOs.
If we were to take the small subsection of comfortable anomalous UFO reports and compare their distribution amongst the areas of the globe under influence by humans (areas with available witnesses), how might we expect these reports to be distributed throughout the unpopulated regions? We know that UFO reports are made by people who have seen them, but do these similar UFOs present themselves where there are no people?
A reason to bring this to light is because of an ongoing debate between the effectiveness of the deployment of instrumented experiments and the apparent rarity of anomalous UFO sightings. If we assume that UFOs are rare because we so infrequently see them and be convinced of their anomalous nature, then what will convince us to expand witness coverage (via technological solutions) into uninhabited areas?
Conventional, technological, and out-of-the-box approaches are the way to go. A small, well equipped and well engineered barge floating throughout the ocean with instruments ready and waiting could be an elegant solution. But are UFOs present and active in areas with no people? How might we determine this? Should we consider changing our conservative budgeted approaches? What directions are feasible to take?