Scientists Studied Flying Saucers—and Found a Different Threat
They weren’t worried about the saucers themselves, but about reports swamping government agencies.
They weren’t worried about the saucers themselves, but about reports swamping government agencies.
A group of scientists who examined reports of flying saucers in 1953 found no direct threat. They worried that the reports and the panic surrounding them could obscure real dangers.
This is the CIA-assembled file documenting the Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects (the Robertson Panel), convened by the Office of Scientific Intelligence and meeting 14-18 January 1953 under the direction of DCI General Walter B. Smith. It includes the panel's formal report concluding that UFOs posed no direct physical threat to national security and showed no evidence of foreign artifacts or extraterrestrial origin, F.C. Durant's detailed report of the meetings, a summary of evidence and personnel lists, and associated 1952-1953 transmittal correspondence to the Secretary of Defense, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the National Security Resources Board. The panel warned of indirect dangers from continued reporting (clogged intelligence channels, vulnerability to hostile propaganda) and recommended an integrated program of public 'debunking' and personnel training to reduce reporting 'noise.' The file also contains earlier 1952 memoranda on radar phantoms and a draft IAC letter to the Secretary of Defense recommending expanded scientific research into flying saucers.
Kodachrome motion picture films (about 1600 frames) of objects in the sky; analyzed by ATIC and the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory, which expended roughly 1000 man-hours plotting individual frames and concluded the objects were not birds, balloons or aircraft and were 'self-luminous.' The Panel rejected that conclusion, judging the objects most likely birds (seagulls) reflecting sunlight.
Motion picture film of bright lights; Panel believed the objects were probably aircraft and the bright lights reflections of aircraft known to be in the area.
'Foo Fighters' — unexplained 'balls of light' sighted by allied pilots in both European and Far East theaters that would fly near or with aircraft and maneuver rapidly. Believed to be electrostatic, electromagnetic, or light-reflection phenomena. Robertson and Alvarez had investigated these; at least two reviewed cases were categorized by them as probable Foo Fighters, unexplained but not dangerous.
Cosmic ray counters went 'off scale for a few seconds' apparently while a 'V' of flying saucers was observed visually.
A series of observations by the 'Los Alamos Bird Watchers Association' in which cosmic ray coincidence counters behaved queerly; circuit diagrams and records were available.
"That the evidence presented on Unidentified Flying Objects shows no indication that these phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to national security."
Speaker: Scientific Advisory Panel
Why it matters: The panel's core conclusion finding no direct physical threat from UFOs
Page 8
"We firmly believe that there is no residuum of cases which indicates phenomena which are attributable to foreign artifacts capable of hostile acts, and that there is no evidence that the phenomena indicate a need for the revision of current scientific concepts."
Speaker: Scientific Advisory Panel
Why it matters: Explicit rejection of both foreign-artifact and novel-science explanations
Page 8
"the cultivation of a morbid national psychology in which skillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority."
Speaker: Scientific Advisory Panel
Why it matters: The panel's framing of the indirect psychological/propaganda threat
Page 9
"That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired;"
Speaker: Scientific Advisory Panel
Why it matters: The recommendation underlying the official 'debunking' policy
Page 9
"In other words, the burden of proof is on the sighter, not the explainer."
Speaker: F. C. Durant (report of meetings)
Why it matters: Crystallizes the panel's evidentiary posture toward UFO reports
Page 24
"The 'debunking' aim would result in reduction in public interest in 'flying saucers' which today evokes a strong psychological reaction... As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the 'secret' is known."
Val Peterson
Administrator · Federal Civil Defense Administration · Page 2
Richard D. Drain
Secretary, Intelligence Advisory Committee · CIA · Page 4
Walter B. Smith
former Director of Central Intelligence; convened the panel · CIA · Page 4
Robert Amory, Jr.
Assistant Deputy Director/Intelligence · CIA · Page 6
C. D. Jackson
Special Assistant to the President · The White House · Page 6
Robert Cutler
Executive Office Building · Page 7
James S. Lay
Executive Secretary · National Security Council · Page 7
George Morgan
Psychological Strategy Board · Page 7
Tracey Barnes
Psychological Strategy Board · Page 7
H. P. Robertson
Chairman of the Panel · California Institute of Technology · Page 9
Lloyd V. Berkner
Panel member · Associated Universities, Inc. · Page 9
S. A. Goudsmit
Panel member · Brookhaven National Laboratories · Page 9
Luis W. Alvarez
Panel member · University of California · Page 9
Thornton Page
Panel member · Johns Hopkins University · Page 9
J. Allen Hynek
Associate member · Ohio State University · Page 12
Withdrawal sheet: a document dated 17 Jan 53 withdrawn from the file and relocated to CIA Job No. 84-T00U<oR, because it contains security-classified or otherwise restricted information.
Likely reason: Removal of a still-classified document under the National Security Act of 1947 / CIA Act of 1949
Withdrawal sheet: a document dated 17 Jan 53 withdrawn from the file (folder JIS/HC 1-75) and relocated, citing security classification.
Likely reason: Removal of a still-classified document under the National Security Act of 1947 / CIA Act of 1949
Transmittal letter to Val Peterson where the name of the recipient of one set of report copies (apparently the Chairman, National Security Resources Board) is struck through and overwritten.
Likely reason: Editorial strike-through / distribution correction rather than a security redaction
This is the canonical Robertson Panel file (CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence, Jan 1953). Two distinct documents are bundled: the brief signed Panel report (Tab A, pages 8-9) and F.C. Durant's much longer 'Report of Meetings' (pages 15-34), plus transmittal correspondence (1953) and an earlier cluster of Oct-Nov 1952 memoranda on radar phantoms and a draft IAC letter to the Secretary of Defense. OCR quality is poor in places (garbled spellings throughout); names and conclusions were cross-checked against the known historical record. Key recurring figures (Robertson, Alvarez, Goudsmit, Berkner, Page, Hynek, Durant, Ruppelt, Fournet) likely tie this file to many other corpus documents on Project BLUE BOOK and 1952 sightings.
No. They found no evidence of that.
They feared the reports would flood communication channels and make it harder to get a real warning through.
Speaker: F. C. Durant (report of meetings)
Why it matters: Describes the debunking program and explicitly names mass media (television, motion pictures, Walt Disney, Inc.) as vehicles
Page 30
"It was interesting to note that none of the members of the Panel were loath to accept that this earth might be visited by extraterrestrial intelligent beings of some sort, some day. What they did not find was any evidence that related the objects sighted to space travelers."
Speaker: F. C. Durant (report of meetings)
Why it matters: Notable nuance: openness to extraterrestrial possibility while finding no supporting evidence
Page 20
"The results of the panel's studies have moved CIA to conclude that no National Security Council Intelligence Directive on this subject is warranted."
Speaker: James Q. Reber (IAC-D-67)
Why it matters: Documents the bureaucratic outcome: no NSCID would be issued
Page 14
Frederick C. Durant
Associate member; author of the report of meetings · Arthur D. Little, Inc. · Page 12
William M. Garland
Brigadier General, Commanding General, ATIC · USAF · Page 12
H. Marshall Chadwell
Assistant Director, Office of Scientific Intelligence · CIA · Page 12
Ralph L. Clark
Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Scientific Intelligence · CIA · Page 12
Philip G. Strong
Chief, Operations Staff, O/SI · CIA · Page 13
Edward J. Ruppelt
Captain; Project Officer (BLUE BOOK) · USAF, ATIC · Page 13
Dewey J. Fournet, Jr.
Project Monitor / aeronautical engineer and technical intelligence officer · USAF · Page 13
David T. Griggs
Professor of Geophysics; cited as most knowledgeable on Foo Fighters · University of California at Los Angeles · Page 18
Hadley Cantril
Psychologist suggested as consultant; authored 'Invasion from Mars' · Princeton University · Page 30
Don Marquis
Suggested as consultant psychologist · University of Michigan · Page 30
Leo Rosten
Mentioned as possible consultant psychologist · Page 30
Arthur Godfrey
Mentioned as a possible mass-audience communication channel · Page 31
Walter G. Whitman
Chairman, Research and Development Board · Research and Development Board · Page 36
Loftus E. Becker
Deputy Director for Intelligence · Central Intelligence Agency · Page 36
Alfred R. Maxwell
Brigadier General, USAF, Air Force Secretary (RDB) · USAF · Page 37
James Q. Reber
Secretary, IAC / Assistant Director, Intelligence Coordination · CIA · Page 14
Robert Lovett
Secretary of Defense (addressee of draft letter) · Department of Defense · Page 39
Washington, D.C., USA
Page 2
Tremonton, Utah, USA
Page 10
Great Falls, Montana, USA
Page 10
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, USA
Page 10
Bellefontaine, Ohio, USA
Page 17
Haneda A.F.B., Japan
Page 17
Port Huron, Michigan, USA
Page 17
Presque Isle, Maine, USA
Page 17
Lubbock, Texas, USA
Page 33
Palomar Mountain, California, USA
Page 28
Los Alamos, USA
Page 28
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Page 10
Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC)
USAF · Page 8
Air Defense Command (ADC)
USAF · Page 19
USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia
US Navy · Page 13
Ground Observer Corps
USAF · Page 30
Kodachrome motion picture film (Tremonton sighting)
sensor · Page 21
35 mm stereo cameras (proposed ATIC airport tower program)
sensor · Page 26
Cosmic ray coincidence counters
sensor · Page 28
Air Defense radar
radar · Page 19
Polyethylene 'pillow' balloon
ground · Page 11
In January 1953, a group of scientists met in the United States at the CIA’s request to examine reports of flying saucers. The group included experts in physics, astronomy, and other scientific fields.
They found no evidence that the objects posed a direct threat to the United States. But the reports themselves worried them: too many could obscure a real warning. The fear surrounding them, they thought, could also be exploited by the country’s enemies.
The scientists reviewed reports gathered by intelligence agencies, including cases considered well documented. They found no evidence that the objects were hostile aircraft from another country. Nor did they see any reason to revise the prevailing scientific understanding.
But the sheer volume of reports could create another problem. Important information passes among the military and intelligence agencies through communication channels. If those channels were flooded with reports that pointed to no danger, it could become harder to get a real warning through in time. Repeated false alarms could also lead people to ignore a warning that later proved genuine.
Their concern went beyond information. The scientists feared that public anxiety and distrust of the authorities could allow the United States’ adversaries to stir panic and undermine confidence in the government.
They therefore proposed that the authorities demystify flying saucers. They also recommended training military personnel to recognize ordinary objects that had been misidentified and screening out such reports. That, they hoped, would leave communication channels clearer for information about real dangers. The idea was not just to explain to the public what they were seeing. It was also to keep the reports from distracting attention from other threats.
The report does not explain what caused each sighting. It suggests that people may mistake one object for another, but does not claim that this explains every case.
If every report sounds like a warning, how do you know when the danger is real?