Chapter 4 Question 2

In all three perspectives of the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects, each author has a very different way of interpreting how they think of UFOs. First off, in Paynter's argument, he shows that there is no single object that can 100% show that aliens have visited the world. He says that we could believe that crop circles and cattle mutations might be aliens interacting, but shows no full-proof evidence of extraterrestrials. Next off in Hynek's argument of UFOs he tells his audience that we need to do psychological studies to those who say that they have seen UFOs. He says that it would really help to find out if these people were really "awake" and if their stories were true, what basis do they all have. He next goes into science, and how science can find a comparison with those who have seen UFOs. Lastly, in Condon's argument, he shows his reader that UFO reports have been made repetitively throughout the last 21 years and if these reports tell the truth about aliens and out of this world people. He goes into detail about if the reports are ligament and if they are worthy of being published and being used at a federal level. Truthfully, I like Paynter's argument the best because it doesn't knock out the idea of UFOs, but it shows hard evidence that I need.