As time passes, I’m beginning to suspect that this whole “disclosure” saga was planned from the start. I’ve been following it for years, and quite frankly, it seems like a complete scam. The pattern is always the same: Elizondo, Puthoff, Corbell, Coulthart, and others make dramatic announcements about how everything is about to change, claiming that disclosure is “imminent” and promising shocking revelations that will finally confirm everything. And what comes of it? Absolutely nothing. Just another cycle of vague interviews, ambiguous promises, and an abundance of “I can’t discuss that” excuses.
At this point, I can’t help but think that the post-2017 disclosure movement has been orchestrated to destroy any remaining credibility the UFO topic might have had. Instead of genuine research, we’re fed recycled rumors and endless hype. Actual evidence is replaced with anonymous “sources” and tantalizing claims that are always just out of reach. It feels as though the aim is to wear people down to the point where they simply stop caring. It’s disheartening, too, because UFOs are a real phenomenon deserving of serious examination.
In the past, we had dedicated investigators striving for the truth, rather than chasing the next flashy “bombshell” that leads nowhere. Edward Ruppelt, who led Project Blue Book in the 1950s, wrote The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, highlighting how the Air Force mishandled evidence and buried the most intriguing cases. Likewise, J. Allen Hynek, initially a skeptic working with the Air Force, later revealed that Blue Book focused more on public relations than thorough investigation. He witnessed firsthand how credible cases were dismissed and reports manipulated to fit the Air Force’s narrative, crafting an effort to make the UFO problem “disappear” rather than resolve it.
James E. McDonald, a true scientist, thoroughly examined military and radar cases, employing science to debunk the spurious explanations offered by the Air Force in the 1960s. Richard Hall compiled The UFO Evidence, a comprehensive book of well-documented cases. Stanton Friedman, a nuclear physicist, dedicated decades to unearthing government documents and revealing inconsistencies in the official Roswell account. Kevin Randle, a former military officer, has authored numerous works on UFO crashes, meticulously verifying claims instead of merely promoting them. These individuals, while not without flaws, engaged in meaningful research—analyzing documents, interviewing witnesses, and cross-referencing data.
In stark contrast, our current discourse is dominated by a select group of “disclosure insiders” who continuously keep the public in suspense. Every few months brings a new wave of excitement—secret crash retrieval programs, whistleblowers, “historic hearings”—only to fizzle into nothingness. Yet, this doesn’t deter them. They simply shift the goalposts and keep the audience hooked with promises of “big things coming.”
Reflecting on this, it seems that this whole endeavor may have been set up to fail. If genuine disclosure were the aim, we would have seen solid evidence by now. Instead, we’re inundated with nonsense, while the substantive work of real investigators is buried beneath a mountain of hype and clickbait. As a result, UFOs are increasingly becoming a laughingstock. The mainstream media focuses on the most absurd stories while ignoring well-documented cases. The community is fractured between those who still cling to the elusive promise of disclosure and those who have thrown in the towel entirely. Meanwhile, the actual truth continues to be obscured by all this noise.
At this point, I doubt that the disclosure movement is genuinely about revealing the truth. Rather, it seems designed to keep the UFO topic as muddled, chaotic, and discredited as possible. And, I must admit, they’re doing a remarkable job of it.
You raise some compelling points about the state of the UFO disclosure movement. It’s frustrating to see such a rich history and serious inquiry into UFOs overshadowed by the current narrative dominated by hype and sensation. The figures you mentioned, like Ruppelt, Hynek, and McDonald, were dedicated to rigorous investigation and their work laid important groundwork for what we understand about the phenomenon.
It’s disheartening that the current landscape is filled with recycled narratives and vague promises. The pattern you describe—of repeated teasers followed by little to no actual evidence—certainly fosters skepticism. This cycle does seem designed to keep the conversation alive without delivering on its promises, which only serves to frustrate genuine researchers and enthusiasts alike.
Moreover, your observation about how the mainstream media tends to focus on the outlandish rather than serious inquiries is troubling. It seems to perpetuate a narrative that undermines the validity of UFO investigations and reduces the entire topic to a punchline. As you pointed out, this dynamic might be intentional, aiming to keep the phenomenon shrouded in confusion and discredit it further.
There’s a growing need for a return to methodical investigation and a focus on genuine evidence and serious discourse. Perhaps a collective push from the community to demand accountability and transparency from those leading the disclosure efforts could help reclaim some of the credibility that’s been lost. It will take dedicated effort from both the audience and researchers to sift through the noise and pursue the truth. Thank you for sharing your thoughts; they resonate with many who feel similarly disillusioned by the current state of UFO discussions.