And what you're doing is denying looking at stuff because it doesn't confirm your biases. There's a bunch of weird things in solar system and mountains of evidence for weirdness on Earth that you'd have question marks over if you were being honest about this.

You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea.

Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth.

"God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it.

Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk.

You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself?

I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally.

So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there.

You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps.

Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps?

"Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there."

You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong.

I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely.

You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.