63% UAP craft, but just 50% extraterrestrial life. In the spirit of this, "UAP craft" to me means not just, for example, an atmospheric effect that that looks like that. Also space alien built automated or remote control craft to me still seems "extraterrestrial life".

Therefore, this is a man made UAP? Some missiles are hypersonic, and at those speeds air physics is counterintuitive and allows for rapid electronics controlled changes in direction.

@AlanTennant

I clarified here underQuroe's comment:

https://manifold.markets/benmanns/aliensgov-prop-bets#4fjyt87ka17

@benmanns If the site isn't online by the close date, then this resolves YES? NO? N/A?

So if it says aliens do exist by then, then this resolves NO?

@PhantomHazard

@Quroe

If the site unequivocally (explicitly, without any doubt) states that aliens or any other form of advanced non-human intelligence (NHI) exist as a confirmed fact, this resolves NO.
This applies even if the site also confirms the existence of UAP craft. The “but does not” clause is strict, so any definitive confirmation of NHI disqualifies a YES outcome.

• If the site unequivocally states that UAP craft (i.e., physical drones, weapons systems, or vehicles) exist, but does NOT definitively state that aliens/NHI exist, this resolves YES.
  This includes cases where aliens/NHI are discussed, hypothesized, suspected, or considered likely, but not confirmed as fact.

• Unequivocal standard:
  Aliens/NHI must be explicitly and definitively stated to exist (as a factual claim) to trigger a NO resolution.
  Statements such as “possible,” “likely,” “believed to,” “suspected,” or similar do not meet this standard and therefore do not trigger a NO resolution.

Hey @benmanns, for resolution purposes does "content" mean "a valid website served from the domain" (e.g. a landing/coming soon page), or does "content" refer to a full/meaningful website release (which would be a lot harder to judge objectively)?

Time for return of the mysterious extraterrestrial lens flares again.

I thought only .gov was only available for USA government use.

@AlanTennant it is! So the USA government is planning something.

@benmanns Any chance they've been ignoring the rules and selling/(sub letting) them out, being that they are the government, to 3rd party private individuals or organisations?

Please resolve to mexicans if it's about illegal immigrants from other countries that are not Mexico lmao

How about: If it includes Mexicans, I’ll resolve yes. If not, I won’t. You’re welcome to add one that’s more broad. 😄 I was aiming to exactly match the inspiring comment.

@benmanns Sounds good ahahahaha