Feb 26
It’s Time to Rethink Disclosure
Who’s really driving the disclosure narrative and why? A look at how we got here, and what may lie ahead.
The zeitgeist subject of disclosure — proof we are not alone in the universe — is even more complicated than it seems. Perhaps disclosure requires some disclosure.
For many of us, it’s a misnomer. We focus on the “proof we are not alone” part, without challenging the assumption that the source must be insider information. We seem to have accepted we’re waiting for an announcement from an official source, like the Navy, Air Force, NASA or SETI.
So who’s driving the disclosure narrative? Not scientists, for the most part. SETI’s mission is to “lead humanity’s quest to understand the origins and prevalence of life and intelligence in the universe” by monitoring “electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets”. A noble endeavor, but with zero interest in the science of visitors to our planet. If we already have extraterrestrial craft in our skies, whoever’s visiting is obviously capable of getting here without emitting electromagnetic radiation.
NASA is a civilian government agency, meaning the national space agency is nonmilitary. But for the last 75 years it hasn’t been NASA investigating UAPs, we’ve been told it’s the Navy and Air Force. That makes sense from a security perspective, but is it really only an issue of intrusion into our airspace? NASA was created in 1958, but not until six decades later, in 2022 did it adjust its position on UAPs to acknowledge it’s actually looking for extraterrestrial existence. OK, that’s progress, but will we see any of it?
Not if NASA’s track record is anything to go by. NASA’s longest relationships are with the Department of Defense and the CIA. Presenting itself as a space exploration agency with a public facing profile, NASA answers first to the government. Redacted space shuttle feeds and edited audio from lunar landings would tend to support that MO. Some say NASA really stands for Never A Straight Answer.
If you could be present at Galileo’s trial in 1633, knowing what we know about the path the planets take around our sun, and you saw his conviction for heresy (for relaying his own observations made with the newly invented telescope) — would his sentencing change what you know to be true? In other words, do you need an authority figure to tell you what is science and what is not science?
Shouldn’t the greatest discovery in the history of human evolution be in the hands of scientists? Shouldn’t it be public-facing, like trials for the cure for covid or cancer, where study results are shared eagerly and publicly? Instead, we’ve accepted en masse that it’s OK to be told what is truth and what is not truth, by elected officials and career military. These would not be my choice of investigator.
How did we get here?
The Roswell incident in 1947 unleashed the modern day UFO and Grey alien phenomenon into popular culture. Without going down known territory, the point of interest here is the way the media was handled. After an open admission in the press that a UFO had crashed and was under investigation, a fast backtrack was made to rebrand the incident — as a downed weather balloon.
Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds radio broadcast, caused panic in 1938, and this was even cited within government sources as reason for caution — but the real reason for the media 180 goes deeper than that.
It’s worth noting that in the late 1940s and early ’50s the public was not in a state of panic about UFOs — it was gripped with an insatiable curiosity, a thirst for knowledge. To the government, a curious public is even more dangerous than a rioting public.
Going deeper. The real reason for secrecy.
There’s an iron fist in the velvet glove of secrecy: and it’s clenched tight with fear. No military power on Earth can come close to technology that can accelerate from zero to over a thousand miles an hour, and make high speed 90 degree right angles, without being impacted by g-force — and that includes drones. The powers that be, must at all costs maintain the illusion that they’re in control — of the potential threat, and of the people — which means, of the narrative.
Nick Pope, former UFO investigator for the British Ministry of Defense (the real life UK X-Files), has said, “What you always want to do in government, is you want to be driving the narrative. You don’t want to be reacting to this, you want to be taking ownership of it.”
This is why disclosure is doled out in bite sized portions rather than a big reveal. Those in power decide what the disclosure menu is going to be — not you, not aliens, not anyone but the arbiters of the news feed.
We wait for certified, corroborated information, but when we get it, from the institutions we trust, it’s rife with inconsistencies. That’s no accident, it’s basic protocol. They have to leave a loophole to backtrack if they should need to, so they can expose even their own evidence as flawed and spin a new story that puts them in front.
Consider these inconsistencies in the New York Times article of 2017, exposing a supposed cover up of military research into UAP:
- The poor quality of the videos
- The voices of the pilots chatting casually when their speech is normally limited to specific use of language
- The sheer unlikelihood of the Navy deciding it’s time to talk to the New York Times
Keep in mind the jaw dropping scope of the misinformation-disinformation campaign that’s been waged against we the people since 1947. The US led the way in this, then many other countries, like Britain for example, followed suit.
The list of US operations established to supposedly investigate UAP and related phenomena is huge, and most or all were little more than devices to look busy, collect information, lock it away, and then release only info supporting hoaxes and explainable events. To name just a few since 1947: Project SIGN, Project Grudge, Project Blue Book, NICAP, ATIC, Contact Division (CD), The Scientific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the Robertson panel), the Condon Report, MOGUL, Majestic-12 (MJ-12)/Magic, the Condon Committee, and now AARO. I’m sure there are more, and I make no attempt to explore black ops groups spending billions of dollars from dubious sources — that’s an article in itself. So is the history of the CIA’s study of UFOs.
A brief timeline of recent disclosure events:
The New York Times article and Navy admission, 2017.
The Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), 2022.
NASA’s “Big UFO Study” in 2022 (finally!)
The White House press secretary’s announcement that the Chinese spy balloon fiasco shows “no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity” is another step toward normalizing the discussion.
Ongoing: The surfacing of credible witnesses — fighter pilots, astronauts, astronomers, and DOD, Pentagon, Navy and NASA whistleblowers.
Tools of the ‘tirade’
Misinformation: Incorrect data attributed to a reliable source. (Truth is fiction.)
Disinformation: Falsehoods knowingly disseminated by reputable sources.(Truth and fiction keep changing places like a shell game.)
Muddying the water: The dissemination of true facts from dubious sources, so the information itself is tainted. (Truth must be fiction because it’s wearing a tin foil hat.)
Examples of muddying the water:
- Revealing clues that agencies are investigating something, knowing conspiracy theorists will fill in the blanks, often erroneously, but sometimes correctly.
- A smear campaign to make UAPs something comical, the stuff of conspiracy crackpots — ensuring the media embraces terms like “flying saucer” and destroying the credibility of the quite reasonable term “UFO”.
If they put that much work into just confusing the public, how much work do you think they’ll put into making sure disclosure happens on their terms?
The evidence presented by the New York Times article mentioned above is a good example of all three terms in action:
Misinformation: By refusing to comment for decades, government agencies have taken the position that nothing is being investigated.
Disinformation: Admitting they’ve been investigating aerial phenomena, means their previous denials were deliberate falsehoods.
Muddying the water: Nonmilitary sources have been claiming all along that the military has been encountering and investigating UFOs. The leaked pilot video suggests the right information from the wrong sources was actually correct all along. But if they had to keep it under wraps for reasons of national security, how come a journalist can break the story with naval backup?
So what does this mean? The operators of the narrative have redirected our attention, in the ongoing shell game. Their objective? To maintain control of the disclosure narrative.
Wag the dog. No more UFO, the newspeak is UAP.
Changing the language, changes the direction of the conversation. After decades of reducing the debate to ridicule, they now want to talk — because if they don’t, someone else will.
The powers that be face a greater humiliation than being exposed as liars, so they’ll take one on the chin. No, we do not investigate UFOs, but yes, we have been investigating UAPs. The real fear is being exposed as an inferior power.
What would you do, knowing you face an unrelenting, inevitable reckoning? Cover your assets. Literally. Redirect public attention. At some point, there won’t be a big enough rug to sweep this thing under.
The disclosure we’re being handed is a narrative scripted by the losers. The losers who are in control of the information, but not in control of the subject matter: the technology.
Between now and when? How do we navigate this engineered chaos?
Well one way is to surf misinformation and disinformation. Step back and study how data connects with other data, regardless of source, then investigate the flow of that information. Sometimes a through-line surfaces that shows us the bigger picture. If it’s happened in the past, it can happen again — just like all those accounts of Navy pilots that could never be corroborated.
It’s worth considering that the military, the predominantly grant-funded scientific community, and fiscally answerable academia all have a vested interest in maintaining positions of power, which makes them all unreliable sources.
But at least science speaks the language of science. We don’t need a translator to absorb new information from scientific sources. Science can at least test science — but who’s testing the veracity of the government? We can’t do much, but we can think for ourselves, can’t we?
What lies ahead? What could be the tipping point?
My personal theory (and that’s all it is), based on 70+ research books, online research and interviews with experiencers, is that the decisive moment will be triggered by an event beyond their control, and they will seize upon it to reposition themselves on the right side of it. Any disclosure appetizers between now and then are deliberate moves toward achieving that end game. So what might that decisive moment be?
There’s evidence from multiple sources that the Arctic and Antarctica hold secrets beneath the ice sheets — possibly signs of an extraterrestrial presence in prehistoric times. Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate due to climate change (85.3% of northern glaciers are retreating), and this means more will inevitably be revealed — whether the arbiters of information like it or not.
My money’s on something showing up in the Arctic circle first, but there’s been a lot of military interest in Antarctica as well. Operation Highjump was a US navy expedition on a massive scale. Led by Admiral Richard Byrd, supposedly to establish a research base, the task force included 13 ships and 33 aircraft. Even if you discount the accounts of whistleblowers that include crystalline structures beneath the ice, hidden subtropical environments, and reports of flying discs, there was at least enough going on down there to warrant the deployment of 4,700 men for six months, from August 1946 to February 1947, producing 49,000 photographs. All this for a research base? And if they were just hunting rogue Nazis, then what were the Nazis doing down there?
America has maintained a strict protocol on locking down information about UAP sightings and potential extraterrestrial phenomena, but not all countries take the same approach — Mexico, for example. If another country were to release verifiable video or some other form of conclusive evidence, the US will not be able to wag somebody else’s dog. Their own activities will be thrown into a new light, and this could move disclosure along as well.
There’s mounting evidence of UAP sightings over nuclear missile silos and military bases, and even commentary from military sources that UAPs disabled nuclear missiles. If a nuclear missile is ever launched in a wartime scenario, UAPs might disable it. The ‘Sophie’s choice’ of either admitting an 800 billion dollar budget was spent on a dud, or that UAPs disabled their missile, might actually be seen as the time to use the disclosure narrative — perhaps alongside some nice new tidbit that puts them back in the driver’s seat.
There could also be a mass UAP sighting event that’s just too widespread to shove under a magic carpet. Advances in cell phone camera technology along with ready access to sites like Youtube will only push the possibility of a viral, layman-generated mass exposure.
If any of the above tip the scales too far from a position of control, they may leak secrets they’re already aware of, for example: the discovery of unnatural phenomena on a far off planet with photographic evidence courtesy of the James Webb Space Telescope or the Hubble Space Telescope. A structure would be the big one, but even a physics anomaly would move the needle along the disclosure dial and keep the newsfeed in their hands.
Conclusion
The bottom line is the US military and NASA have built their credibility on being the front line of emerging technology, but they can’t explain or compete with the g-force-defying technology of UAPs. Even with an 800 billion dollar annual budget, the US military is outclassed by an unknown force.
The objective of the disclosure narrative was never to disclose — it is and has always been to redirect the argument. Repositioning expectations resembles progress without having to answer the big questions: Are UAPs alien technology? Are aliens here? If so, what do they want? What are our institutions doing to protect us, or to represent us?
The disclosure we’re being fed is a glistening new cocktail made by the same host at the same party. The theme has never changed — keep us drunk enough to see the pretty party lights but not too much more. This is our party, our information, being withheld from us to protect them, not us.
The irony is, the powers that be hold almost all the information, but they don’t hold all the cards. Behind the bluff, they know, and they’re counting on us not knowing, that they’re not in control of disclosure at all — only the media spin, the damage control. The shell game continues with higher stakes: not just the defense against potential exposure, but defense against inevitable exposure.
We may be deprived of an authentic debate, but we are not deprived of our freedom to think things through. Just like any politico with a media megaphone, we’re entitled to an opinion. We can investigate anything we want. The sheer momentum of popular opinion is capable of pushing disclosure along. Public debate does not require a license from the government or the military.
Disclosure from “trusted” sources is only the first wave, and doesn’t have to be the conclusive wave. The big push can come from outside agency sources, and that means we have to keep looking, asking, refusing to accept packaged answers to prefabricated questions.
Any investigation anchors on the motive, and that applies to disclosure. Read the motives, not the headlines. And remember what started the whole shell game in the first place: fear of public curiosity. They’re not the only ones with a secret weapon.
The big picture will be understood by us because we’ve broadened our minds and looked beyond our current understanding of science, physics, astronomy and even history — and not because we blinkered our scope or cobbled our expectations. Consider the POV of the James Webb Space Telescope: it can only see what it’s pointed at — there remains a whole lot of space in every other direction. There is so much knowledge waiting for us.
For regular insight into the UFO/UAP issue, check out Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel.
