First, I never said that I don't treat people fairly as a moderator. Only that how I treat them is none of your business unless I made it public. The only reason your warning was public is that it was intended for everyone to see and correct their behavior.
Second, please always refer to me as "Mr." ("Mr. Moderator" or "Mr. SkinWalker" with both do nicely).
Third, and actually on-topic, I'm being very serious when I ask, with all curiosity, which of the men you listed is the most competent and reliable and which work of that man is his most significant with regard to UFOs, space aliens, and flying saucers. You need not post a link, a citation to a text or peer-reviewed work will do fine.
And I ask this for the sake of intelligent and rational discussion. You can choose to participate in an intelligent, rational discussion or you can go on and on about moderation, the behavior of other posters, your respect for whomever.... If the latter is your goal, please do so in the appropriate forum or the appropriate manner.
You see, your post itself in the second paragraph seems to be colored with sarcasm and prejudice. Space Aliens? Flying Saucers? Come on. If you're going to HONESTLY examine this subject, you have to do so like a real skeptic. Not someone hiding behind the cloak of demanded "Empirical Evidence" and self determined preformed opinions on the matter.
It is true that MANY noteworthy scientists, certainly not just those that I googled inside of a 15 minute time frame, are extremely interested in this phenomenon. But how in the name of all that is science can ANYONE be considered the foremost authority on a subject that no one fully understands or comprehends to begin with? It doesn't work that way does it?
So the issue becomes one that begs real objective research. Research that allows great minds to juxtapose their ideas with respect to speculative hypothesis. These guesses, with respect to what is the UFO phenomenon, are best made by outlining irrefutable facts. Such facts are:
1) UFOs having been a major influence as documented throughout the last several thousand years time in mankind's history.
2) Countless examples of highly scrutinized film, photographs & video evidence. Evidence that is absolutely irrefutable. For instance, as pointed out much earlier by myself, the same clearly defined multiple objects as filmed via public spectacle by roughly 300 different video cameras simultaneously. That's a controlled experiment in observation if ever there was one.
3) Eye witness testimony by HUNDREDS of high ranking individuals of every walk of life. Every nationality and official professional capacity. People that were they to address a league of highly intelligent scientists and researchers on any other subject would command the utmost in respect and attention.
4) The last little item in this brief list comes in the form of a question. If UFOs bear no real recognized potential with respect to the United States Government, why are all this pieces of paper that they release via the "right to know" act, to scientific pests like Stanton Friedman, always majority blacked out? Why would we classify and give a priority secrecy status to something that's not real?
As far as a single "best mind", "most definitive research paper", I'm not sure there is one. At least I myself don't clamor after any one particular author or scientist. There is a an excellent, well written book called The God's of Eden by an author named William Bramley. It's a very quick read with respect to the clear evidence of documented UFO testimony and portrayal throughout recorded history over the last few thousand years. It also contains a great deal of fascinating esoteric history apart from the UFO phenomenon itself.
The trick to being a real skeptic lies in the ability to take all information with a grain of salt, and yet realizing that it only requires a discovery that starts out no bigger than a grain of salt, to create a paradigm shift within science itself. Those who discount reality based on predetermined aesthetic values or notions are doomed to an understanding no greater than yesterday's.
