Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence, CIA, January 14-18, 1953 (the Durant Report)
What this is
The convening body, named by the document itself. Link 923 has asserted this on the evidence of a Wikipedia citation for as long as it has existed.
The Panel's central conclusion, over its own signatures, in the document the 2003 CIA letter names.
The Durant Report's own wording of the panel's general comments, including its criticism of the ATIC section's modest size and limited facilities - a clause absent from the separately released C00015458 version of the same section.
13 passages read · 28 pages held · the rest is not described
Open the document at www.cia.gov →13 passages read
“REPORT OF MEETINGS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS CONVENED BY OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE, CIA. January 14 - 18, 1953”
The convening body, named by the document itself. Link 923 has asserted this on the evidence of a Wikipedia citation for as long as it has existed.
“The Panel's concept of a borad educational program integrating efforts of all concerned agencies was that it should have two major aims: training and ‘debunking’.”
THE ORIGIN OF THE DEBUNKING CLAIM, in the Panel's own programme rather than in later commentary. "borad" is the document's own typing and is left as written.
“The Panel took cognizance of the existence of such groups as the ‘Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators’ (Los Angeles) and the ‘Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (Wisconsin). It was believed that such organizations should be watched because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking if widespread sightings should occur. The apparent irresponsibility and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be kept in mind.”
THE SENTENCE SPANS TWO PAGES - it breaks after "potentially" at the foot of printed p.23 and finishes at the head of printed p.24. Quoting only the cited page would have given half of it, which is what spans_to exists to prevent. The unbalanced quotation mark before "Aerial Phenomena Research Organization" is the document's own.
“Dr. Robertson at least was of the opinion that after public gullibility lessened and the service organizations, such as ADC, had been trained to sift out the more readily explained spurious sightings, there would still be a role for a very modest-sized ATIC section to cope with the residuum of items of possible scientific intelligence value.”
DURANT REPORTING ROBERTSON, not Robertson writing - and the hedge "at least" is Durant's own. It is evidence that the rapporteur attributed this view to the chairman on the record; it is not the chairman's signature.
“That the evidence presented on Unidentified Flying Objects shows no indication that these phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to national security. 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.”
The Panel's central conclusion, over its own signatures, in the document the 2003 CIA letter names.
“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;”
Recommendation 4a, and the sharpest single line in the file. The page is signed by H. P. Robertson (Chairman, California Institute of Technology), Lloyd V. Berkner (Associated Universities), Luis W. Alvarez (University of California), S. A. Goudsmit (Brookhaven National Laboratories) and Thornton Page (Johns Hopkins University).
“/s/ H. P. Robertson, Chairman, California Institute of Technology. /s/ Lloyd V. Berkner, Associated Universities, Inc. /s/ Luis W. Alvarez, University of California. /s/ S. A. Goudsmit, Brookhaven National Laboratories. /s/ Thornton Page, Johns Hopkins University.”
THE ONLY PLACE IN THIS DOCUMENT WHERE THE PANEL MEMBERS ARE NAMED. Every individual name in Part I is redacted under 25X1A, including the writer's own. Signatures are laid out in two columns on the page and are transcribed here in a single readable order; the page image is published so a reader can see the layout. Robertson is the only one whose signature carries a role.
“The AD/SI opened the meeting, reviewing CIA interest in the subject and action taken. ... Following this introduction, Dr. Chadwell turned the meeting over to”
The only place Chadwell is named in the pages read here, and the sentence that identifies him as the AD/SI - the officer to whom PDF 3 records the Director of Central Intelligence's action being delegated. The quote breaks where the page's next name is redacted. THE DOCUMENT NOWHERE WRITES THAT CHADWELL CONVENED THE PANEL in those words; it records the delegation to the AD/SI and then shows Chadwell acting as AD/SI at the panel.
“This case was considered significant because of the excellent documentary evidence in the form of Kodachrome motion picture films (about 1600 frames). The Panel studied these films, the case history, ATIC's interpretation, and received a briefing by representatives of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory on their analysis of the film.”
WHO ANALYSED THE TREMONTON FILM, according to this document: the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory analysed it and briefed the Panel, and the Panel studied it. No individual is credited - every personal name on this page is redacted under 25X1A. This map credits the analysis to Luis Alvarez, which this document does not support, and link 787 is left unbound because of this passage.
“Lt. R. S. Neasham, USN, and Mr. Harry Woo of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia, presented the results of their analyses of the films mentioned above.”
THE TREMONTON AND GREAT FALLS FILM ANALYSTS, NAMED. Neither is a panel member. The films are identified on the same page as "the motion pictures of the sightings at Tremonton, Utah (2 July 1952) and Great Falls, Montana (15 August 1950)". This map credits the Tremonton analysis to Luis Alvarez; this document credits it to these two men and to their laboratory, and link 787 is unbound for that reason.
“Besides Panel members and CIA personnel, Capt. E. J. Ruppelt, Dr. J. Allen Nynak, ... Capt. Harry B. Smith (2-e-2), and Dr. Stephen Possony were present.”
HYNEK IS COUNTED OUTSIDE THE PANEL, and the same construction recurs on printed pp.4 and 5. "Nynak" is the document's own misspelling of Hynek and is left as written; he is spelled correctly elsewhere in the same file. The ellipsis stands where two names are redacted under 25X1A. Link 793 calls him an "(associate member)"; this document consistently lists him among those present BESIDES the members.
“(A copy of the final report is appended as Tab C.) This was followed by a review of work accomplished by the Panel, and restatement of individual Panel Member's opinions and suggestions on details that were felt inappropriate for inclusion in the formal report. It was agreed that the writer would incorporate these comments in an internal report to the AD/SI. The material below represents this information.”
THE SECOND, INDEPENDENT STATEMENT THAT PART II IS INFORMAL MATERIAL - the first being the covering memorandum on printed p.1. It also gives the third tab reference, "Tab C" for the final report, which is what shows the body-versus-index lettering to be a consistent shift rather than a one-off error. And it names the author once more only as "the writer".
“PART VI: COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF PANEL. GENERAL. The Panel Members were impressed (as have been others, including O/SI personnel) in the lack of sound data in the great majority of case histories; also, in the lack of speedy follow-up due primarily to the modest size and limited facilities of the ATIC section concerned. ... the inability of the witnesses to express themselves clearly (sometimes) that conclusive explanations could not be expected for every case reported. Furthermore, it was considered that, normally, it would be a great waste of effort to try to solve most of the sightings, unless such action would benefit a training and educational program (see below). The writings of Charles Fort were referenced”
READ AGAINST cia-c00015458 PDF 1, which carries the same passage with the O/SI parenthetical and the ATIC criticism removed, and with "(semantics)" where this reads "(sometimes)". Also note this page heads itself PART VI while the report's own index on PDF 2 calls the section Part II.
Where no sheet is shown, the quote was still read off the page, rendered from the file we hold. A page image has not been prepared for the web for that page yet.
What this document is used for, page by page
Every claim on this map that rests on this document, and every claim tested against it and deliberately not used — in the order you would meet them reading the file itself. Where the check was written down, our wording is followed by the document’s own sentence, so you can hold the two side by side. 8 of 10 name a page. 2 were tested here and not used.