Lenz Law Analog
In electromagnetic phenomena a rising electric current in a wire also generates a magnetic field which in turn (while changing) generates an electric current that is always opposed to the initial current that started the process. But that opposed current is always weaker than the initial current so that the primary current eventually overcomes all resistance and establishes itself as constant. Lenz resistance only occurs when a change is made in the current or magnetic fields generated. And, when a current is turned off, it generates a magnetic field that tends to oppose the shut off by generating a current that tends to keep the current flowing ... but it too is overcome and the current eventually dies out. This is why electrical workers have to use a long pole (the proverbial ten foot pole) to switch off major current carrying wires ... if they don't ... the Lenz current caused by the collapse of the associated magnetic field may arc over to their bodies and kill them.
There is a related phenomenon in sociology
It apples here to the skeptics. They are the 'resistance' to the idea that UFOs are real. Their existence is expected and is philosophically correct. Some portion of a culture should oppose any change in civilization because, in general, changes are detrimental (true in evolution and society). The chances of making a major and yet beneficial change to civilization are fairly slim because the state of civilization at any time is a sum of all the opinions of all the people within it. Most often, that general opinion which might be thought of as the "consciousness" of the culture is right ... or right for the level of sophistication available to it. In other words, the civilization may be defective but it can do no better "at the moment".
When a better way comes along, if it is truly better, it will generate its own resistance but in time will overcome that resistance and become the new, improved civilization. The resistance to the idea that UFOs are real phenomena is weakening due to the accumulation of data from credible witnesses and its assimilation into the culture. it is being assimilated into the culture ... not because the culture is weakening (as the skeptics would claim) but rather because it is (for better or worse) a truth that cannot be denied indefinitely.
I should point out here that merely accepting that UFOs are real will not change civilization much. Change will occur when something is done about it, i.e. we make such devices ourselves. A philosophical "sea change" in civilization will not change anything unless it is accompanied by physical changes in its mechanical devices or in its methodology (government and social relations). So far, I would have to agree with the skeptics that nothing has come of the study of UFOs in either area (physical or social). I do not look upon the true conservative skeptic as an enemy but rather as a kind of "sea anchor" that keeps the ship of state from foundering in unruly seas whilst the liberal "true believer" sets the course ... with the wind or into it. The liberals tend to steer the vessel and the conservatives tend to oppose course corrections which are, in fact, most often bad decisions ... but not always.
You can detect a skeptical cave in
You may have seen the UFO special with Peter Jennings from a few years ago "Seeing is Believing". It was a fairly well balanced presentation insofar as proponents and skeptics were given approximately equal time. That is, both sides could complain about unfairness with equal vociferation.
What I saw in James McGaha (an absolute, long term critic of ufology) was a "quavering" voice, unsure of itself in regard to the Phoenix lights. He looked like he was "pressing" to explain, as a formation of planes, the fact that hundreds of credible witnesses said they saw a craft around 8PM that was maybe a mile wide and solid ... a boomerang shape ... but he didn't truly believe his own explanation. And the "new guy" Michael Schermer ... his lips were distorting as when someone subconsciously (or consciously) doen't believe the words that are coming out of his own mouth. These visual "clues" to someone's inner state are not unknown to psychologists or even police interogaters. But, politely, nobody pressed them on these issues and nothing much would be gained anyway. It is enough to see that they are intellectually defeated in the matter at hand (Phoenix lights).
The primary skeptic on earth today is James Randi. He is the godfather of skepticism. His word is law. No one dares to disagree with him about the contents of his "woo-woo bag". He has cast into this bag all things "strange" that the common people believe in. The problem is that the bag is toooooo all-consuming and ... he can't ... philosophically ... take anything out of the bag once he has put it in ... fearing that he might then have to empty the entire bag, i.e. any concession is total surrender.
Of course, this is not true.
It is only true if you believe that the proponents of a particular "woo-woo" are your philosophical enemies. That is, if you view your opponent as "an enemy of life and reason". In the case of UFOs, this is not true. Hitler and Stalin were enemies of life and reason ... ufologists are not. They merely seek the truth as propounded by thousands upon thousands of dispassionate observers.
Mr. Randi cannot accept them as such but rather must deceive himself into believing a fantasy ... that the ufologists are all insincere "nuts". And further ... he cannot bring himlelf to investigate any important case as he would then have to confront a moral dilemma ... admit that he has been mistaken about anecdotal evidence. That instead of being an intellectual "throwaway" ... anecdotal evidence is a statistical indicator of either total gullibility or that a truth exists out there. He can accept anecdotal evidence as only an indicator of gullibility. It can never be an indicator of truth else he would have to regularly re-examine his woo-woo bag ... his collection of absolute truths.
I know Mr. Randi to be a good man. Unfortunately, he cannot, as yet, bring himself be honest within his own mind. He cannot accept the advice of Socrates ... "Know Thyself". And that is the true, fundamental dilemma faced here and in every other walk of life ... Can you be honest with yourself? ... How do you know you are being honest? ...
In this particular issue, all any skeptic has to do to satisfy me is to actually go to Phoenix (or other notable case) and interview exhaustively witnesses to the event. Then, if he still believes they are lying or deluded ... I can accept and respect his point of view even while disagreeing.