THIS IS WHY WE HAVE NOT SEEN ALIENS YET & IT’S NOT GOOD ACCORDING TO A REPUTED SCIENTIST

In recent days, two research directions in this direction have been published. The first comes from René Heller of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System (Germany) and Ralph Pudritz, McMaster University ( Canada). These scientists have simply reflected the way we detect exoplanets and overthrew the problem: what are the moments and the most favorable locations to detect and observe the Earth when it is far away in space?    

One technique for observing planets around other stars is to use the time they spend in front of their sun. This is the so-called "transits," which could even afford to get details on the composition of the atmosphere of exoplanet studied, and thus to discover traces of life. 

Heller and Pudritz suggest to focus on the stars may be in the "gray area" in which, seen from there, the Earth would pass before the sun. If we shine our instruments on these stars, we could detect potentially habitable planets. Moreover, we could "hear" these planets, particularly with specialized radio telescopes in attempts to detect extraterrestrial intelligence, looking for signals that these "aliens" would send us after realizing that the Earth meets the conditions necessary for life and perhaps even found our electromagnetic emissions. The second possibility, published a few months ago but back on the center stage this week, is more a hypothesis testing, one of the aliens already know about us, watching us but do not wish to contact us. This is one of the answers to the Fermi paradox, called "the zoo hypothesis ." In the style of the "prime directive "non-interventionist "Star Trek, "those brave Aliens have decided to let us live our lives peacefully watching us from afar. Physicist and Astronomer Brian Cox was the latest to address the Fermi Paradox in a recent interview. Although his outlook is relatively pessimistic, it is still a very real possibility. Cox says, “One solution to the Fermi Paradox is that it is not possible to run a world that has the power to destroy itself and that needs global collaborative solutions to prevent that.” He continues, “It may be that the growth of science and engineering inevitably outstrips the development of political expertise, leading to disaster. We could be approaching that position.” For what reasons? There's a gaggle of possibilities. For example, they can wait until we have reached a certain level of technology required for a first contact, considering it necessary that a civilization develops by itself without outside help. Perhaps instead they look at us with bewilderment wondering when we're going to self-destruct, unwilling to get caught in such molasses. Their motivations are perhaps so foreign to our thinking that we can not imagine. 

YET,STILL THEIR EXISTENCE ..REMAINS A MYSTERY.