Posted On: March 11, 2023

4. Robertson Panel.

The Robertson Panel was a committee established by the United States Air Force in 1953 to investigate the increasing number of UFO sightings in the United States. The panel was named after its chairman, Howard Percy Robertson, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology. The panel was composed of 12 members, including physicists, psychologists, and radar experts, and was tasked with evaluating the scientific evidence related to UFOs.

The panel's conclusions were largely skeptical of UFO sightings and their extraterrestrial origins. They attributed most sightings to misinterpretations of natural phenomena such as clouds, stars, and meteors, as well as to the misidentification of man-made objects such as planes and satellites. They also believed that a small percentage of sightings could be attributed to psychological phenomena such as hallucinations and hoaxes.

Stanton Friedman criticized the Robertson Panel's conclusions as being biased and dismissive of legitimate UFO sightings. He argued that the panel members had little expertise in the subject matter and that their conclusions were predetermined by the Air Force's desire to downplay the significance of UFO sightings.

Friedman pointed to the panel's dismissal of radar data as evidence of their bias. He noted that radar data from several sightings had shown the presence of unidentified objects in the sky that moved at speeds and in patterns that were beyond the capabilities of known aircraft. Friedman argued that the panel had ignored this evidence and had instead focused on discrediting eyewitness testimony.

Friedman also criticized the panel for its focus on debunking UFO sightings rather than investigating them objectively. He argued that the panel had adopted a "debunking mentality" that prevented them from considering the possibility that UFOs could be of extraterrestrial origin. Friedman believed that this mentality had influenced subsequent government investigations of UFO sightings and had stifled legitimate scientific inquiry into the phenomenon.

Friedman's analysis was supported by other researchers, including J. Allen Hynek, a prominent astronomer. Hynek had served as a consultant to the Air Force on the Robertson Panel and had become disillusioned with their dismissive approach to UFO sightings. Hynek later developed his own classification system for UFO sightings that distinguished between "close encounters" and "daylight disks," which he believed were more likely to be of extraterrestrial origin.

Hynek's classification system was based on a careful analysis of the available evidence, including radar data and witness testimony. He believed that many sightings could not be easily explained away as natural phenomena or hoaxes and argued that more research was needed to determine their true nature.

Friedman and Hynek were not the only researchers to criticize the Robertson Panel's conclusions. In the years following the panel's report, a number of other scientists and investigators continued to study the UFO phenomenon and found evidence that contradicted the Air Force's explanations. Some of these researchers conducted their own investigations and compiled extensive files of case studies and witness testimony, which they used to challenge the official government position on UFOs.

One such researcher was Jacques Vallee, a French-American computer scientist and UFO investigator who was highly critical of the Robertson Panel's methodology and conclusions. Vallee argued that the panel had not taken the time to thoroughly investigate the sightings it had examined and had instead relied on a narrow and limited set of data points to support its dismissive conclusions. Vallee believed that UFO sightings were a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that could not be easily explained away by conventional scientific theories or explanations. He pointed out that many sightings involved strange and unexplained phenomena, such as unidentified objects that appeared to move in impossible ways or exhibited advanced technological capabilities that were far beyond anything known to exist on Earth.

Vallee's criticisms of the Robertson Panel were echoed by many other researchers and investigators, who continued to study the UFO phenomenon and gather evidence that challenged the official government position on the subject. Over time, a growing body of evidence began to emerge that supported the idea that UFOs were a real and unexplained phenomenon that deserved serious scientific attention and investigation.

Despite the efforts of researchers such as Stanton Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, and Jacques Vallee, the conclusions of the Robertson Panel continued to shape the government's official stance on UFOs for many years. However, in recent years, the release of previously classified documents and the testimony of government insiders has shed new light on the government's involvement in studying the UFO phenomenon and in hindsight support Stanton, Vallee, and Hyneks legitimate criticisms.

5. Condon Report.

The Condon Report, formally known as the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, was a report conducted by the University of Colorado and funded by the United States Air Force, which aimed to investigate the UFO phenomenon. The report was led by physicist Edward Condon and released in 1969. The report was controversial from the beginning, with many critics accusing it of being biased towards skepticism and predetermined conclusions.

The Condon Report's main conclusion was that UFO sightings did not present a threat to national security, and that there was no evidence to suggest that they were extraterrestrial in origin. The report stated that the majority of UFO sightings could be attributed to natural phenomena, misidentifications, hoaxes, or psychological effects.

However, the Condon Report was met with criticism from various individuals and organizations, including Stanton Friedman and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Friedman, a nuclear physicist, argued that the Condon Report's conclusion that there was no evidence for extraterrestrial visitation was premature and unsupported by the evidence. He accused the report of ignoring key pieces of evidence and testimony that pointed towards the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation.

The AIAA criticized the Condon Report, stating that the report was biased towards a predetermined conclusion and failed to adequately consider credible UFO sightings. In a statement, the AIAA stated that "The Condon Report was plagued by methodological flaws, including a lack of objectivity and a failure to consider a significant amount of credible UFO sightings." The notion that the findings were the result of a predetermined conclusion had been confirmed.

The AIAA went on to criticize the report's methodology, stating that it was flawed and that its conclusions were not supported by the available evidence. The AIAA's criticisms of the Condon Report centered on the report's lack of scientific rigor and its failure to consider credible evidence.

Stanton was ultimately unsatisfied with the committee's methodology and conclusions. In his book, "The UFO Cover-Up," Friedman argued that the Condon Committee's investigation was biased from the start and that its conclusions were predetermined.

Friedman noted that the committee had a skeptical attitude toward the UFO phenomenon, and this attitude influenced its investigation. He criticized the committee's use of the term "swamp gas" to explain a sighting in Michigan, which he believed was an attempt to ridicule the witness and dismiss the sighting as a natural phenomenon. Furthermore, Friedman argued that the Condon Committee's statistical analysis of UFO sightings was flawed. The committee concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin, but Friedman pointed out that this conclusion was based on a narrow definition of what constituted "evidence." He believed that the committee should have considered a broader range of evidence, including eyewitness testimony, physical trace evidence, and radar data.

The AIAA also criticized the Condon Report's statistical analysis of UFO sightings. In a statement issued after the report's release, the AIAA stated that the report's statistical analysis was "inadequate and inappropriate" and that the report's conclusion that UFOs did not pose a threat to national security was "unfounded." The AIAA also questioned the report's methodology, stating that the report "did not provide a full, detailed, and scientifically acceptable explanation of all the cases investigated.".

The report was supposedly subject to intense scrutiny by members of the National Academy of Sciences to ensure its accuracy. One of the reviewers was H. Richard Crane, a renowned physicist and distinguished professor from the University of Michigan. Along with his colleagues, Crane evaluated the report and concluded that the majority of what people were seeing in the skies was easily explainable and that further investigation of UFOs was not warranted. However, Crane's archived papers at the Bentley Library contain letters from Edward Condon, the head of the Condon Committee, in which he discusses one of the most controversial aspects of the report. This was a memo written by Robert J. Low, an assistant dean at the University of Colorado and a member of the Condon Committee. Low's memo, which dates back to 1966, stated that the study would find that UFO observations had no basis in reality. This raised concerns about the objectivity of the project, and copies of the memo were leaked to the press, causing widespread controversy. Look magazine published an article about it, which received significant media attention. Despite the controversy, the Air Force accepted the findings of the report, and Project Blue Book, the government's investigation into UFOs, was officially shut down in 1969.

The discovery of the letter showed quite clearly what Stanton Friedman and others had expressed, the Condon report was an intentional misdirection, and the outcome, predetermined.

J. Allen Hynek's statements in 1974 regarding his critisisms of the Condon report:.

Post from user NotArtificial at UFObelievers at reddit.

Posted On: March 11, 2023

4. Robertson Panel.

The Robertson Panel was a committee established by the United States Air Force in 1953 to investigate the increasing number of UFO sightings in the United States. The panel was named after its chairman, Howard Percy Robertson, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology. The panel was composed of 12 members, including physicists, psychologists, and radar experts, and was tasked with evaluating the scientific evidence related to UFOs.

The panel's conclusions were largely skeptical of UFO sightings and their extraterrestrial origins. They attributed most sightings to misinterpretations of natural phenomena such as clouds, stars, and meteors, as well as to the misidentification of man-made objects such as planes and satellites. They also believed that a small percentage of sightings could be attributed to psychological phenomena such as hallucinations and hoaxes.

Stanton Friedman criticized the Robertson Panel's conclusions as being biased and dismissive of legitimate UFO sightings. He argued that the panel members had little expertise in the subject matter and that their conclusions were predetermined by the Air Force's desire to downplay the significance of UFO sightings.

Friedman pointed to the panel's dismissal of radar data as evidence of their bias. He noted that radar data from several sightings had shown the presence of unidentified objects in the sky that moved at speeds and in patterns that were beyond the capabilities of known aircraft. Friedman argued that the panel had ignored this evidence and had instead focused on discrediting eyewitness testimony.

Friedman also criticized the panel for its focus on debunking UFO sightings rather than investigating them objectively. He argued that the panel had adopted a "debunking mentality" that prevented them from considering the possibility that UFOs could be of extraterrestrial origin. Friedman believed that this mentality had influenced subsequent government investigations of UFO sightings and had stifled legitimate scientific inquiry into the phenomenon.

Friedman's analysis was supported by other researchers, including J. Allen Hynek, a prominent astronomer. Hynek had served as a consultant to the Air Force on the Robertson Panel and had become disillusioned with their dismissive approach to UFO sightings. Hynek later developed his own classification system for UFO sightings that distinguished between "close encounters" and "daylight disks," which he believed were more likely to be of extraterrestrial origin.

Hynek's classification system was based on a careful analysis of the available evidence, including radar data and witness testimony. He believed that many sightings could not be easily explained away as natural phenomena or hoaxes and argued that more research was needed to determine their true nature.

Friedman and Hynek were not the only researchers to criticize the Robertson Panel's conclusions. In the years following the panel's report, a number of other scientists and investigators continued to study the UFO phenomenon and found evidence that contradicted the Air Force's explanations. Some of these researchers conducted their own investigations and compiled extensive files of case studies and witness testimony, which they used to challenge the official government position on UFOs.

One such researcher was Jacques Vallee, a French-American computer scientist and UFO investigator who was highly critical of the Robertson Panel's methodology and conclusions. Vallee argued that the panel had not taken the time to thoroughly investigate the sightings it had examined and had instead relied on a narrow and limited set of data points to support its dismissive conclusions. Vallee believed that UFO sightings were a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that could not be easily explained away by conventional scientific theories or explanations. He pointed out that many sightings involved strange and unexplained phenomena, such as unidentified objects that appeared to move in impossible ways or exhibited advanced technological capabilities that were far beyond anything known to exist on Earth.

Vallee's criticisms of the Robertson Panel were echoed by many other researchers and investigators, who continued to study the UFO phenomenon and gather evidence that challenged the official government position on the subject. Over time, a growing body of evidence began to emerge that supported the idea that UFOs were a real and unexplained phenomenon that deserved serious scientific attention and investigation.

Despite the efforts of researchers such as Stanton Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, and Jacques Vallee, the conclusions of the Robertson Panel continued to shape the government's official stance on UFOs for many years. However, in recent years, the release of previously classified documents and the testimony of government insiders has shed new light on the government's involvement in studying the UFO phenomenon and in hindsight support Stanton, Vallee, and Hyneks legitimate criticisms.

5. Condon Report.

The Condon Report, formally known as the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, was a report conducted by the University of Colorado and funded by the United States Air Force, which aimed to investigate the UFO phenomenon. The report was led by physicist Edward Condon and released in 1969. The report was controversial from the beginning, with many critics accusing it of being biased towards skepticism and predetermined conclusions.

The Condon Report's main conclusion was that UFO sightings did not present a threat to national security, and that there was no evidence to suggest that they were extraterrestrial in origin. The report stated that the majority of UFO sightings could be attributed to natural phenomena, misidentifications, hoaxes, or psychological effects.

However, the Condon Report was met with criticism from various individuals and organizations, including Stanton Friedman and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Friedman, a nuclear physicist, argued that the Condon Report's conclusion that there was no evidence for extraterrestrial visitation was premature and unsupported by the evidence. He accused the report of ignoring key pieces of evidence and testimony that pointed towards the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation.

The AIAA criticized the Condon Report, stating that the report was biased towards a predetermined conclusion and failed to adequately consider credible UFO sightings. In a statement, the AIAA stated that "The Condon Report was plagued by methodological flaws, including a lack of objectivity and a failure to consider a significant amount of credible UFO sightings." The notion that the findings were the result of a predetermined conclusion had been confirmed.

The AIAA went on to criticize the report's methodology, stating that it was flawed and that its conclusions were not supported by the available evidence. The AIAA's criticisms of the Condon Report centered on the report's lack of scientific rigor and its failure to consider credible evidence.

Stanton was ultimately unsatisfied with the committee's methodology and conclusions. In his book, "The UFO Cover-Up," Friedman argued that the Condon Committee's investigation was biased from the start and that its conclusions were predetermined.

Friedman noted that the committee had a skeptical attitude toward the UFO phenomenon, and this attitude influenced its investigation. He criticized the committee's use of the term "swamp gas" to explain a sighting in Michigan, which he believed was an attempt to ridicule the witness and dismiss the sighting as a natural phenomenon. Furthermore, Friedman argued that the Condon Committee's statistical analysis of UFO sightings was flawed. The committee concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin, but Friedman pointed out that this conclusion was based on a narrow definition of what constituted "evidence." He believed that the committee should have considered a broader range of evidence, including eyewitness testimony, physical trace evidence, and radar data.

The AIAA also criticized the Condon Report's statistical analysis of UFO sightings. In a statement issued after the report's release, the AIAA stated that the report's statistical analysis was "inadequate and inappropriate" and that the report's conclusion that UFOs did not pose a threat to national security was "unfounded." The AIAA also questioned the report's methodology, stating that the report "did not provide a full, detailed, and scientifically acceptable explanation of all the cases investigated.".

The report was supposedly subject to intense scrutiny by members of the National Academy of Sciences to ensure its accuracy. One of the reviewers was H. Richard Crane, a renowned physicist and distinguished professor from the University of Michigan. Along with his colleagues, Crane evaluated the report and concluded that the majority of what people were seeing in the skies was easily explainable and that further investigation of UFOs was not warranted. However, Crane's archived papers at the Bentley Library contain letters from Edward Condon, the head of the Condon Committee, in which he discusses one of the most controversial aspects of the report. This was a memo written by Robert J. Low, an assistant dean at the University of Colorado and a member of the Condon Committee. Low's memo, which dates back to 1966, stated that the study would find that UFO observations had no basis in reality. This raised concerns about the objectivity of the project, and copies of the memo were leaked to the press, causing widespread controversy. Look magazine published an article about it, which received significant media attention. Despite the controversy, the Air Force accepted the findings of the report, and Project Blue Book, the government's investigation into UFOs, was officially shut down in 1969.

The discovery of the letter showed quite clearly what Stanton Friedman and others had expressed, the Condon report was an intentional misdirection, and the outcome, predetermined.

J. Allen Hynek's statements in 1974 regarding his critisisms of the Condon report:.

Post from user NotArtificial at UFObelievers at reddit.