Talk:Robertson Panel

message: Should alien life be found, aliens find Earth, does the world's governments have a plan ?Martial Law 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back - up Plan ? 

message: It means unidentified flying object.  Not once were aliens mentioned in the article but once the acronym UFO is mentioned people jump to the conclusion of aliens.  This is absurd.  There is no proof of alien life forms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.200.103 (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO does not mean aliens  

message: This govt. approved protocol is still in effect. That is why people will not come foward with pertainable evidence about the O' Hare UFO Incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial Law (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting old. Forgot sig. Martial Law 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is still in effect

message: This article needs some work - it's very POV, with weasel words throughout.  Also, lots of instance of unnecessary quote marks, which can distort the meaning of the facts at hand.  Some examples follow:
None of the Panel's members was formally trained in motion picture or photographic analysis, and only one had any experience with photography (astronomic still photography and not motion picture film[2])Nonetheless, after screening the films only a few times, they dismissed the idea that either the 1950 Montana UFO Film or the 1952 Utah UFO Film showed "genuine" UFOs.
Unnecessary use of the word "nonetheless" and quotes.
Furthermore, the Panel suggested the Air Force should begin a "debunking" effort to reduce "public gullibility" and demystify UFO reports, partly via a public relations campaign . . .
Unnecessary quotes.
Hynek's opinions changed in later years as well, so much that he became, to many,[7] the scientifically respectable voice of Ufology.
Even with a citation, this is still weaselly.
There's plenty more to find in the article.
I'm tagging it Non-POV for now, and I can work on it later.  I think the facts about the Robertson Panel can be presented without necessarily favoring either side of the UFO debate. 74.140.209.184 (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: "The Robertson Panel issued as report called the Durrant Report which recommended a widespread education program, and that education program had two planks to it: One plank was to train people into how to properly process UFO-related information, and the second plank was to debunk all UFO reports and anything associated with extraterrestrial life." This is stated by Michael Salla on an April 5, 2008 episode of Exopolitics Radio. If this can be corroborated, perhaps we should have something about this project in the article. __meco (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Durrant Report 

message: The article suggests that there was a National Security Council meeting on 28 July 1952 at which the decision was made to convene the Roberson Panel.  There was no such meeting on that date.  According to published indicies about the meetings, the 119th NSC meeting was on 18 June 1952, the 120th was on 25 June 1952, and the 121st was on 6 August 1952.  The agenda items for each of these meetings do not indicate that UFO or UFO related materials were up for discussion.  Has anyone seen the transcripts of those NSC meetings?  I suggest that the date be removed, or another source be located for this NSC meeting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.145.193 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental Evidential Problem 

message: The Robertson panel and the resulting Durrant Report are clearly of historical interest. Some of the earlier comments have validity and I'll have a go at editing this article - will be in a month or two as very busy at the moment and I'll have to cross check some details first. Anthony Mugan (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree this needs updating, but clearly of historical interest 

message: I've made one small update - correcting the suggestion that an NSC meeting was held on the 28th July 1952 that initiated the CIA review, as there is no documentary evidence for any such meeting. I will continue with a more substantial updating over the next couple of week
Anthony Mugan (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial update

message: I've completed a fairly significant edit to this article. I would be interested in any feedback - hope its reasonably balanced and evidentially based but all comments gratefully recieved. I shall have a look and find out how to get this disputed impartiallity tag reviewed and hopefully removed.Anthony Mugan (talk)Anthony MuganAnthony Mugan (talk)
:Looks like almost a complete re-write.  A lot of time and effort must have been involved.--Koppas (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it's a re-write, the original cleanup tag must be considered obsolete.  It should be up to future editors to judge the new article with a new set of eyes and tag it if necessary.  Tag removed.--Koppas (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  significant update 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: The Lure of the Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of Ufos. (See also contributor copyright investigation). Much of this verbatim copying - introduced here - had subsequently been removed or rewritten, but several sentences remained. Copied material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may certainly be rewritten (and I hope somebody with familiarity with this subject will do so), but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed