There is a positive side to all of this, however, The low-grade controversy generated by "devout believers in the existence of UFOs" (book ad in The New York Times) has attracted a great deal of attention in the news media of the world. A lot of rubbish about UFOs has been printed, and the entire field of speculation remains chronically inconclusive, but attention has also been drawn to a profound question: Are we alone in the universe? Is there life on other planets? And indirectly all of this has led to support and interest in governmental space programs.
But what of UFOs, ancient or modern? The best proposition I know for evaluating any hypothesis was offered 40 years ago by Bertrand Russell in Skeptical Essays:
There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed: the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts twenty years ago. Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The skepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: 1) that when experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; 2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; 3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exists, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgments. These propositions seem mild, yet, if accepted they would revolutionize human life.
The revolution is not yet, but as a very ordinary non-expert and a card-carrying skeptic, I will begin it by regarding no opinion as certain.