Except for the assassination of Pluto, I like Tyson.Here's a great explanation from the present day Carl Sagan, and my favourite science proponent:
To be clear, the question was setup for that exact response from him. I REALLY REALLY REEEEEEEALLY F'n hate the word "believe" in context to UFO's. It makes we wanna light shit on fire man! I need a woosa moment......... Ok, I'm better.
I do not think it is a bad thing to stop the discussion at "unidentified" and if all that was seen was "blinking lights in the sky" that is exactly what should occur. However, this phenomenon is far far far far beyond that simple write off. Why should we stop the Stephenville sightings conversation at "unidentified"? Multiple witnesses, multiple radar station verification, several military intercepts attempted, and no transponder squawk from the object does not equal ambiguous blinky lights in the night sky. To stop that conversation at "unidentified" is ridiculous. Hell, it's reckless from an air safety standpoint.
Now that we have more than nocturnal blinky lights to talk about we have to start collecting facts and evidence and try to fit those to things we can quantify. Things like flight characteristics, physical traces, witness reports, close encounter details, and radar data. This is where the validity of the ETH is anchored. If you have witnesses see an object shoot off in the blink of an eye and then have radar data confirming that it was a solid object that just went from 0 to X thousand mph you cant easily dismiss it. This is why the dismissive tone Tyson takes in his narrative is annoying. The insinuation that all people that entertain the possibility tht UFO's might have their origins outside this planet are morons is frankly, insulting. Just as he intended it to be. Lets be honest, he is a bit of an elitist. Not the best guy to bridge any gaps or search for common ground. Juxtapose Tyson with Kaku and note the difference of approach to the same question. Note the different conclusions. I'm pretty sure that Kaku could hold his own with Tyson if we started comparing grey matter. Anyway.....
My real point is that tyson dismisses the entire notion because he holds to one overarching "belief". That the distances between stars is too vast. Thats it. His world.... err... Universe view does not allow him to bridge the gap.
But, and here is where I get you Angelo.... Aren't you, by trotting out Tyson, also a little guilty of the "appeal to authority" fallacy? Tyson is an astrophysicist. He is not a physiologist, psychologist, sociologist, geologist, aeronautical engineer, aerospace engineer, theoretical physicist, optical physicist, radar expert, or a thousand other things. He is really good at orbital mechanics, gravity, star formation, and stuff like that. To put it flatly, discerning the intergalactic travel capabilities of space aliens is a bit out of his pay grade.
Lastly, I just want to point out that though I think the ETH is a good origin theory, it certainly has not been proven.