Original sentence: Crtics of these findings claim that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information," whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination.The Battelle Institute's final report declared it was "highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge.When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%, and that the residual 3% would disappear if more complete data were available
Edited sentence: By the time the Battelle Institute had finished their analysis and was writing up the final report, the political climate had changed dramatically in the post-Robertson Panel era.Further they claimed the residual 3% would disappear if more complete data were available, ignoring the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information," whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination.In their summary, weak attempts were made to rationalize away the implications of their own data.Instead they declared it was "highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge.They claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%.This also ignored the actual result that the better the quality of the data, the more likely a case was to remain unsolved.When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, their public relations people spun the study as disproving the existence of UFOs