With that as a concern, the Robertson Panel, who had seen nothing to suggest that UFOs were anything other than misidentifications, hoaxes, and weather and astronomical phenomena, (and who obviously wanted to see nothing else) needed to address this concern. That was the motivation behind some of the Panel's recommendations. These recommendations then, were born of a need to clear the intelligence reporting channels, and not of a need to answer the questions about the reality of the UFO phenomena.
The Panel report stated, "…although evidence of any direct threat from these sightings was wholly lacking, related dangers might well exist resulting from: a. Misidentification of actual enemy artifacts by defense personnel. b. Overloading of emergency reporting channels with 'false' information ('noise to signal ratio' analogy — Berkner). c. Subjectivity of public to mass hysteria and greater vulnerability to possible enemy psychological warfare."
They went on, writing, "Although not the concern of the CIA, the first two of these problems may seriously affect the Air Defense intelligence system, and should be studied by experts, possibly under ADC. If U.F.O.'s become discredited in a reaction to the 'flying saucer' scare, or if reporting channels are saturated with false and poorly documented reports, our capability of detecting hostile activity will be reduced. Dr. Page noted that more competent screening or filtering of reported sightings at or near the source is required, and that this can best be accomplished by an educational program."
Of all the suggestions in the Panel report, this is the area that has caused the most trouble with interpretation. The Panel was suggesting that if people were more familiar with what was in the sky around them, if they were familiar with natural phenomena that were rare but spectacular, then many sighting reports could be eliminated. How many UFO sightings are explained by Venus, meteors, or bright stars that seemed to hover for hours? In today's environment, with video cameras everywhere, how many times has Venus been taped and offered by witnesses as proof they saw something?
Under the subheading of "Educational Program," the Panel recommended, "The Panel's concept of a broad educational program integrating efforts of all concerned agencies was that it should have two major aims: training and 'debunking.'"
The Panel explained, "The training aim would result in proper recognition of unusually illuminated objects (e.g. balloons, aircraft reflections) as well as natural phenomena (meteors, fireballs, mirages, noctilucent clouds). Both visual and radar recognition are concerned. There would be many levels in such education… This training should result in a marked reduction in reports caused by misidentified cases and resultant confusion."
The problem with the next paragraph came from the use of the word "debunking." Many read something nefarious into it, while the use of it, and the tone of the paragraph suggest something that was, at the time, fairly innocuous, at least according to Condon sixteen years later.
"The 'debunking' aim would result in reduction in public interest in 'flying saucers' which today evokes a strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles. Basis of such education would be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later explained. As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the 'secret' is known. Such a program should tend to reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda. The Panel noted that the general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy."
They then discussed the planning of the educational program. Some have seen that as a "disinformation" program designed to explain UFOs as mundane. The real reason behind it, however, seems to be to end sighting reports made by those who are unfamiliar with the sky. The educational program was suggested as a teaching tool.
The UFO information presented, according to those who were at some or all of the panel's sessions, was managed. They had a limited time and were unable to examine all aspects of the UFO field in the time they had. It can be suggested that a careful management of the data supplied would provide a biased picture and that the conclusions drawn from that specific data would be accurate, but those conclusions would be skewed. It could be argued that the panel was designed specifically so that time would not allow those embarrassing questions to be asked. And, it can be suggested that the panel was loaded with scientists who had already made up their minds about the reality of UFOs.
A careful study of the data supplied to the Robertson Panel does suggest that UFOs are little more than anecdotal gossip. The exceptions supplied to them are the movies and the data from radar. However, without another piece of data, without some kind of physical evidence that would lead to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, no other conclusions could be drawn. The films were interesting, but there were alternative explanations, which while not as satisfactory in the long run, were certainly no less valid. And radar cases are open to the interpretation of the radar operators. Their training, talent and expertise are all important factors.
It was at this same time, the beginning of 1953, that the investigative emphasis that had dominated Blue Book for the eighteen months that had preceded the Robertson Panel began to erode. Ruppelt suggests that it was his demands that more investigators be found, but it seems that Blue Book was becoming too visible and too public. Although the project would continue, the investigative responsibility was moved from Blue Book to the 4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron.
Air Force Regulation 200-2 was in the planning stages with a version approved in August 1953. A year later, August 1954, the regulation went into effect effectively eliminating Blue Book from the investigative mix. Although the regulation required that ATIC be notified about the UFO investigations, there was nothing in it that required Blue Book be informed. What we have is the classic situation where one agency has the responsibility for the UFO investigations and another has the authority. Blue Book had been effectively eliminated, though it still existed.
Ruppelt left the project and it was handed off to a variety of other officers. At one low point in 1953, it was being run by an airman first class, a rather low enlisted grade. Ruppelt inherited it again for a couple of months, and then he was replaced. In March 1954 Captain Charles Hardin became the director.
In April 1956, Captain George T. Gregory, a man who didn't believe, led Blue Book into an almost rabid anti-UFO direction. The change in tone is evidenced in the investigations being conducted. During this time, sightings were to be identified, no matter how. The belief was that UFOs were not extraterrestrial spacecraft, and if they weren't, then another, mundane explanation should be available. The list of early sightings explained under this new concept is extraordinary. Possible was left off the case files so that it seemed that the explanation was definite.
In December 1958, one of the officers assigned to the UFO project claimed that he found "certain deficiencies" that he felt "must be corrected." Specially he referred Air Force Regulation (AFR) 200-2, "dated 5 February 1958, (revised on that date) which essentially stipulates the following… to explain or identify all UFO sightings."