Extraterrestrial hypothesis 

Howdy.  You modified some changes I had made to the intro to ETH.  I had posted some commentary on the reasons behind the changes on the talk page; it would have been nice if you had commented there, especially since I left it open for commentary for over a month before I put the change in place ;-).  If you disliked the way it's written now, you should see what it said before I changed it.  And just removing the citation (which I spent quite some time finding) is not very helpful.  Anyway, other than my slightly bruised ego, your point about the citation not mentioning ETH is well taken.  Regardless of terminology they distinctly were *not* talking about ETH but about UFOs.  I will try to change it to reflect that.  What the citation supports is the notion that when scientists review the evidence at hand, they conclude that some UFO reports merit further study, but they don't really comment much on ETH.  E.g. the notion that there's even a minority support for ETH in mainstream science is wrong.  And leaving the comment "a few scientists ..." is zero info, since you can pretty much find a "a few" scientists supporting any notion.  I will post a version of this comment on the ETH talk page; please follow up there if after my next edit you still disagree with the text.