Whether you believe in UFOs and "little green men" or not, it's difficult to ignore all of the speculation, media hype and even docu-dramas touting or denying the existence of other intelligent life in our universe. This blog invites you to read three viewpoints on the issue of the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects.
Your task is to read the three brief essays in our text by researchers of this phenomena. Their credentials are listed at the beginning of the articles. Read pages 126-130. Then on page 131, use question number 1 as YOUR blog prompt. Respond on the basis of these two articles, and not from outside reading, tv specials or the like. Please keep your response to 90-100 words.
Your task is to read the three brief essays in our text by researchers of this phenomena. Their credentials are listed at the beginning of the articles. Read pages 126-130. Then on page 131, use question number 1 as YOUR blog prompt. Respond on the basis of these two articles, and not from outside reading, tv specials or the like. Please keep your response to 90-100 words.
Ruth.M.
ReplyDeletePHIL 250:902
I believe that Paynter makes the best augrument. This is because there is really no proff. He said it right when he stated that there is no ufo on display in any museums. That we really are not prepared for physical evidence. We might beleive if some artifact can be found on earth that can be demonstrated as alien. The thought that sighting an UFO can not be explained does not mean that it can not be proven to be an alien ship.His thought that we should be able to rely on "alien implants" recovered from poeple aducted by aliens is a different idea. I think it should be taken seriously.
We urge the UFOlogical community to adopt properly scientific standards of investigation and proff of their work. Do we really need proff? Or should we just simple just believe the unexplained and mystery? These are questions I really do not think I want answered. I'm good with just believing.
Angela N.
ReplyDeletePhil 250-951
I too agree Paynter has one of the best arguments out of the three.I liked the part where he said "There is no alien space ship on display in a museum" I agree if there is really aliens then where the heck is the scientific proof? I think yes there is a spirtitual world but UFO'S and aliens hmmmm...Im not convinced!I think Hynek hesitates too much and really dont have any physical evidence.Condon is relying on "reports" of UFO sightings. I have watched some sci fi movies in my time and I see how the show gets carried away in space and so on... really so like Paynter said wheres the proof??? I guess WHEN we see a UFO on display in a museum then there is possibly our proof. Unless.....Someone makes a phony to try to convince us all! lol
John H.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that Paynter has the best argument. There is not hard proof that ET has visited Earth. That is not to say that there are no other world out there with any intelegant life. But that there are no spaceships on display. No alian technology that is known to exist any where in the would.
Sightings of ET is not proof that ET does in fact exist. There are rational explantions for those sightings. It could be anything from hilostinations to weather ballons.
The day one lands on the ground for all the world to see will prove beyound a shadow of a duaght that they do exist.
I do believe that we are not alone in the universe. I do not believe that any have visited Earth.
PHIL 250-951
ReplyDeleteIn the three article on UFOs and aliens Condon states that there is no reason to research this subject any longer, it has been search for 21 years and the is no hard evidence to support that UFOs and Aliens exist. Hynek believes further research should be done because the research that has been done has only been “arranged chronologically, with no attempt at cross-indexing. He feels that we need to start from scratch gathering and processing new data. I agree with Payner’s statement “there simply is no alien space ship on display in a museum somewhere; in fact, there is no object in existence on Earth of which we can say this must have been made by aliens.” I think he has the best argument that there has been NO proof of any of these sightings and abductions. I feel if Earth had ever been visited by aliens we would have found some type of evidence by now to support this theory. I can honestly say even if I walked into a museum tomorrow and saw what was said to be a UFO I would still be skeptical of the idea. We have too many talented people out there that could take the time to create something to resemble a UFO. I think in order to convince me 100% it would have to land right in front of me.
Sue S.
ReplyDeletePHIL 250
While all 3 men believe that there is not enough evidence to support UFO's, their reasons are completely different. Condon feels that if the evidence isn't there after 21 years then it doesn't warrant any more time being spent on this subject. Hynek believes that the evidence could be there but because there isn't a worldwide organization collecting and processing the data there is no way of knowing for sure. Paynter wants physical proof of alien life and UFo's before he will agree to more scientific research in this area. I do think that while Hynek has a well thought out plan in mind to obtain the data about UFO's and aliens. However, without the proof of an actual UFO or an alien being , I have to agree that Paynter made the strongest arguement. I would have to see physical evidence to be convinced that this actually exists.
Sasy C.
ReplyDeletePhil250-951
All three men believe that there is just not enough evidence discovered to positively claim that UFO's exist and for that matter have visited our planet. Condon dismisses the idea that UFO's exist based on the fact that there wasn't any evidence in a study that lasted 21 years. He goes on to say that the info gathered was false data and fictious accounts that were explainable. Hynek believes that there is possibility that UFO's exist but there is just not a strong organization setup to further study the sightings and make a justifiable conclusion. But he doesn't completely throw the idea of UFO's out the window, he simply thinks we need more research, organization, time and effort. If we had these things in place we would have a better way to know for sure. I believe Paynter made the strongest arguement. He stands firm in the assumption that if we infact had proof of UFO's that it would be put on display in a museum for all to see and show as proof that UFO's do in fact exist. He states that he needs actual proof in order to continue with research.
I think we are not the only ones in the vast universe, but I also don't think that whatever else is out there is flying around in flying saucers and look like little green men with big eyes and 2 fingers. I think that there a possibiltity that there is another planet with animals not yet discovered and maybe even humans that may not look just like us but similar.
Amy Schafer
ReplyDeletePhil 250-951
Condon believes that the reason behind more studying of the UFO’s is because scientists don’t believe that studying it will lead to major scientific discoveries. Because there is no belief in it the lack of studying it has occurred. Hynek believes that private groups such as the Condon group did not have enough data to get accurate research. If the data isn’t there then there will be no new information found. Paynter believes that UFO’s are not always going to leave physical evidence of their trip on earth. Too many people blame the government for actual evidence that UFO’s leave.
Jenny Brinkman
ReplyDeletephil 250-951
I believe in what paynter had said. If there was actually alien life and UFO's than why do we not have exibits in our museums like we do with dinos and cavemen? A UFO is an unidentified flying object, not a alien spaceship by comparison. Im kind of on the fence as to what I believe, where is the proof? Although I do believe that there is a possibility.
I think all three man made good arguments but over all Paynter had the best. Paynter said something that makes really good sense; he said “There are no alien space ships on display in a museum”. I full agree, there is no scientific hard evidence that alien life is out there. When it comes to Hynek I feel that he’s not even truly convinced himself. In his article he seems hesitant in his points and doesn’t seem to clear. With Condon is article relies on eyewitness reports from people that have claimed to have had a UFO sighting which I feel isn’t a creditable source. Im not saying that I don’t think alien life doesn’t exist but when it comes to saying there is just based on what people say is flimsy at best. People make stuff up all the time just to try and get there 15 mins of fame. I think there is life out there somewhere but I think I still need a little hard evidence to seal the deal for me.
ReplyDelete