Condon, Hynek, and Paynter each have their own views and evidence on Unidentified flying Objects, or UFOs. Condon believes that through all of the research, there is still no conclusive evidence therefore it is unproductive. Condon believes that they are not real and are a waste of time to research. On the other hand, Hynek believes that we should research and not ignore the topic. Hynek understands that it is a global topic, and therefore it is important that we get to the bottom of it. Many people have witnessed UFOs, and Hynek believes that those accounts are key factors in research.
Finally, Paynter has the most plausible ideas about UFOs. Paynter does not have any firm standpoint or belief in UFOs, but he does believe that there is no physical evidence, therefore at this point, they are not real. I believe Paynter does the best job of stating what is known, and that is that there is no physical evidence, but there is no problem with believing in them.
I totally agree with you that Paynter has the best and strong argument about the existence of UFO. Paynter stated that UFO could either be existed or not. He did not gave a solid answer about the existence of UFO. Besides, he did not make a final decision before there were any physical evidence to support the argument. In addition, he even encouraged scientists to find more reliable evidence. Base on the information I know after reading those three articles, I also believe Paynter did the best job of stating clear what is known. He did not cover any false information. Other than that, he is neutral by honestly saying what is physical evidence supported and what is not.
ReplyDelete