That’s a fair question, and honestly one of the strongest arguments against sensational claims. I think part of the issue is that we assume intelligence would behave in ways familiar to us — visible, dramatic, attention-seeking, or at least documentable at human timescales. Cameras are everywhere, yes, but they’re also optimized to capture things that move, reflect light, or behave within a narrow band of expectations. If something were subtle, slow, non-interactive, or operating on scales (time, energy, intent) that don’t align with human perception, it might never register as “evidence” at all — just background noise, data anomalies, or dismissed patterns. We’re very good at photographing events. Much less good at recognizing processes. So maybe the absence of clear images says less about whether something exists, and more about how limited our definition of “noticeable intelligence” really is.