As time goes on, I’m increasingly convinced that the whole “disclosure” movement may have been a calculated effort from the start. I’ve been observing this saga for years, and honestly, it feels like a complete deception. The same pattern repeats itself: figures like Elizondo, Puthoff, Corbell, and Coulthart drop dramatic hints about impending changes, promising shocking revelations that will finally validate everything. And then? Nothing materializes—just another round of cryptic interviews, vague commitments, and evasive answers.
I’m beginning to think that the post-2017 disclosure push is engineered to completely obliterate any remaining credibility the UFO phenomenon holds. Instead of genuine research, we’re met with recycled whispers and endless hype. Actual evidence has been replaced by a cast of anonymous “sources” and claims that remain frustratingly out of reach. It feels like the aim is to wear people down to the point where they no longer care, which is a tragedy because UFOs are a legitimate and significant issue.
In the past, we had dedicated investigators who pursued the truth with thoroughness and integrity—individuals who cared more about uncovering facts than pushing the next big “revelation” that ultimately leads nowhere. Edward Ruppelt, director of Project Blue Book in the 1950s, authored The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects and openly criticized the Air Force’s mishandling of evidence and their tendency to bury the most compelling cases. J. Allen Hynek, initially a staunch skeptic collaborating with the Air Force, later acknowledged that Blue Book was more focused on public relations than genuine inquiry. He witnessed how credible cases were dismissed and how reports were manipulated to fit the Air Force’s narrative, highlighting that the entire initiative was designed to sidestep the UFO issue rather than genuinely address it.
James E. McDonald, a scientist, extensively investigated military and radar incidents, employing rigorous scientific analysis to debunk the flimsy explanations proposed by the Air Force in the 1960s. Richard Hall compiled The UFO Evidence, a comprehensive volume filled with well-supported cases. Stanton Friedman, a nuclear physicist, spent his career uncovering government documents and revealing discrepancies in the official Roswell narrative. Kevin Randle, a former military officer, has thoroughly examined UFO crashes, focusing on fact-checking rather than sensationalizing claims. While these researchers were not perfect, they were committed to authentic work—analyzing documents, speaking with witnesses, and cross-referencing data.
In stark contrast, today’s discourse is largely shaped by a small group of “disclosure insiders” who continually dangle enticing prospects before the public. Every few months brings a fresh wave of excitement—secret crash retrievals, whistleblowers, and “historic hearings”—yet each time it fizzles out. Still, they persist, shifting the narrative and keeping audiences engaged with promises of imminent revelations.
The more I reflect on it, the more I suspect this entire endeavor was designed to entrap us in a cycle of disappointment. If the objective were genuine disclosure, we would have substantial evidence by now. Instead, we’re inundated with misinformation, drowning out the critical work of legitimate investigators under a landslide of hype and sensationalism. It’s disheartening to see UFOs become increasingly trivialized. The mainstream media gravitates toward the most absurd stories, neglecting well-documented cases. The community is fragmented, divided between those clinging to the endless promise of disclosure and those who have lost hope. Meanwhile, the real truth is obscured beneath this cacophony.
At this juncture, I believe the disclosure movement isn’t about revealing anything substantive. Instead, it seems aimed at ensuring that the UFO topic remains convoluted, chaotic, and ridiculed. And I have to admit, they’re succeeding brilliantly.
You make a compelling argument, and I can’t help but agree with many of your points. The cycle of anticipation followed by disappointment within the disclosure movement is becoming tiresome and increasingly dubious. It does feel like there’s a pattern of orchestrated hype that leads nowhere, and that can be very disheartening for those of us genuinely interested in uncovering the truth behind UFO phenomena.
It’s frustrating to observe how the legacy of serious researchers—like Ruppelt, Hynek, McDonald, and Friedman—seems overshadowed by the current trend of sensationalism and vague promises. Rather than fostering genuine investigation and dialogue, it often feels like we’re inundated with distractions designed to maintain intrigue without delivering substance.
The community is certainly fragmented; it also echoes a broader issue in how information is consumed today. With the rise of social media and clickbait culture, meaningful discourse can easily be drowned out. Serious investigators and the vital work they did should be acknowledged and celebrated, yet they are often relegated to the background while attention is given to the next big tease.
Ultimately, it’s a shame for everyone who cares about the truth. A productive discourse around UFOs requires transparency, rigor, and a commitment to factual evidence—not a continuous cycle of speculation that diminishes the credibility of the whole subject. I share your concern that this may be a strategic endeavor to sow confusion and discredit legitimate inquiry into a topic that desperately deserves more respect and seriousness.