UFO No...maybe.

While reading "Perspectives on Evaluating Evidence for the Existence of Unidentified Flying Objects", three scientists gave their opinion on the research being done on UFO sightings. Edward Condon explains how UFO research is not beneficial for major scientific discoveries and should therefore not be looked into. He concludes that the research should be dismissed based on misrepresentation of UFO sightings to the public and the reoccurring rejection of the sightings by scientist. However, Astronomer J. Allen Hynek defends the UFO sightings saying the research should be given a chance, statistically or specifically. He concludes that if "definite patterns and other correlations" can be established for UFOs reported throughout the world, the probability that they represent something real in science would be certain. Royston Paynter sits in the middle of the two, explaining how the UFO community would need to take on proper scientific standards of investigation and proof in their work in order for conclusions to be made. He defends his conclusion stressing how many people need physical evidence in order to believe something or to be convinced.
I see Royston Paynter's argument as the most convincing argument because he explained how he could neither accept nor deny the UFO sightings, and stressed how important high standards would need to be placed on this kind of research, this including "probative evidence" and "rigorous reasoning" in order to form a plausible conclusion. I personally would like to see more effort and research put into UFO sightings because it is a very popular topic, and whether it is found real or not, people want answers.