Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?

For years I've been stressing with regard to UFOs that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the fabric of space and in the nature of matter, as in a great work of art, there is, written small, the artist's signature.

We are made of star-stuff. Our bodies are made of star-stuff. There are pieces of star within us all.

When you buy a used car, you kick the tires, you look at the odometer, you open up the hood. If you do not feel yourself an expert in automobile engines, you bring a friend who is. And you do this with something as unimportant as an automobile. But on the issues of the transcendent, of ethics, of morals, of the origins of the world, of the nature of human beings, on those issues should we not insist upon at least equally skeptical scrutiny?

I would be very ashamed of my civilization if we did not try to find out if there is life in outer space.

The price we pay for anticipation of the future is anxiety about it