UFO

In the arguments written by Condon, hynek, and Paynter regarding the existence of UFOs,they all try to explain is some way that UFO research should be done but improved. Edward U. Condon states in his report "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" that although they think that two years of studying this matter has not be used wisely and should not be continued because of this, anyone who is truly able to come up with a clearly defined proposal for this matter should be supported. J. Allen Hyner explains in his writting "The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry" that a program should be defined as a legitimate study because there has been many citings of UFOs. In the writting "physical Evidence and Unidentified Flying Objects", Royston Paynter states that the UFOlogical community should use better and standarized forms of investigation and proof of their work. I believe that Condon makes the best argument because he understand that money should not wasted on somethng if people are not fully prepared to do the right type of work for the job. By statting that this is an important matter that should be standarized he understands how much should be put in to the work.