Hypothesizing about a billion year old alien remnant is not Loch Ness monster, it’s just discussing statistics about a phenomena we have no good statistics for - except we know it’s plausible since we already know interstellar space is already populated by two probes launched by a civilization of sentient creatures. I’d say its a topic solidly in the domain of scientific inquiry, but it’s not well defined yet since people trying to discuss it are labeled loonies (reminds me of atom theory and plate tectonics- two phenomena which were prominently ridiculed as well). Of course, ”alien studies” is a domain that is quite hard at the moment-and may always remain so.

And sure, there is lots of crazy talk around the topic. But the fact we have people trying to invent perpetual motion machines does not make every thermodynamicist and machine engineer looney.

> populated by two probes launched by a civilization of sentient creatures.

I've been to parts of New Jersey, and proving it's civilization, let alone sentience or any form of self-awareness may be eagerly disputable.

This funding is from people interested in the ET angle. Aliens is how you get the money.

Right, "a search for new life" will always trump "a search for new mineral" in the eyes of the public and likely most of the scientific community.

Have you listened to any of his other talks? Do you understand his reasoning as to why he mentions aliens? He addresses stereotypical attitudes identical to yours.

Yes I have and no he doesn't.

Yes he does, pretty directly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbJpP_6pOww