To give the reader a clear idea of what I mean by "subtext" (i.e. between the lines) and "embedded", we must do a parsing and semantic analysis of the aforesaid embedded phrases, which when joined, concatenated in strings by their common theme(s), speak volumes and reveal to us what I call "The Real Secret of The Robertson Panel Report":

"We cite as examples the clogging of channels of communication by irrelevant reports, the danger of being led by continued false alarms to ignore real [---- BLACKED OUT ---- BLACKED OUT---] indications of hostile action, and the cultivation of a morbid national psychology in which skillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority...for the timely recognition and the appropriate handling of true indications of hostile action, and to minimize the concomitant dangers alluded to above, the Panel recommends: …

That the national security agencies institute policies on intelligence, … designed to prepare the material defenses and the morale of the country to recognize most promptly and to react most effectively to true indications of hostile intent or action…

(T)hese aims may be achieved … to train personnel to recognize and reject false indications quickly and effectively, and to strengthen regular channels for the evaluation of and prompt reaction to true indications of hostile measures. "

The question naturally arises:

If Flying Saucers are not real, why should did Robertson and his cronies recommend that we have to be trained "to recognize and reject false indications quickly" from "true indications of hostile measures"?

In my opinion (and according to my understanding of the English language), ONLY a real threat (from a conscious adversary, possessing the ability to plan "false indications" strategically) would actually be capable of presenting either "false indications" or "true indications of hostile measures."

How can there be "true indications of hostile measures" from a phenomenon that does not exist?

Let us consider the very first sentence:

"We cite as examples the clogging of channels of communication by irrelevant reports, the danger of being led by continued false alarms to ignore real [---- BLACKED OUT ----] indications of hostile action,"

One must really wonder to oneself (if one has any wonder left in him):

"What are the missing words in the redacted sections that are marked

Let's use linguistics, semantics, lateral thinking, logic, and psychology to figure this out.

What would be the most likely "verboten" word (or words) that have been "blacked out"? What is the government afraid that we will see?

To find the answer to "What was the forbidden topic"? Or topics?" we should simply ask:

"What was the subject of the panel's investigation?"