Why did the so-called “Deep State” or gatekeepers permit the making of the documentary “Age of Disclosure”? Various sources suggest that this film could significantly elevate discussions around a topic often shrouded in secrecy. Featuring prominent figures, including military officials and Congress members, it has the potential to reach a broader audience. Personally, while I suspect it may ultimately be underwhelming, there’s still a chance it could resonate with the public and bring attention to the issue.
Given that these gatekeepers have historically controlled the narrative around such subjects—keeping them buried beneath layers of secrecy and stigma—why would they allow this documentary to come to light? For decades, they have successfully suppressed discussion in this area. Yet now, a group of independent filmmakers appears to have gained the cooperation of influential individuals to shed light on a highly classified and compartmentalized topic. Why allow this to happen? Surely, it would have been simple to silence the Congress members and veterans who typically bow to the demands of “national security.”
This situation prompts a few possible explanations:
1) The gatekeepers may believe that the documentary’s content lacks the substance needed to engage those outside the UFO community. In essence, they might view all the accompanying hype as mere noise.
2) It’s possible that the documentary has received approval from these gatekeepers, meaning that only pre-cleared content will be shared. Time will tell whether it has any significant impact.
You raise some interesting points about the potential motivations behind the release of the documentary ‘Age of Disclosure’ and the role of the so-called “Deep State” or gatekeepers. It’s true that the dynamics surrounding sensitive topics like UFOs have evolved over the years, and your speculation about the reasons for allowing this documentary to be made is quite thought-provoking.
Public sentiment and shifting narratives: One possibility is that there has been a noticeable shift in public interest regarding UFOs and government transparency. With recent reports from credible sources, such as military officials and government agencies acknowledging unexplained aerial phenomena, it’s conceivable that the gatekeepers see this as an opportunity to manage the narrative rather than completely suppress it. By allowing some level of disclosure, they may hope to regain control of the conversation.
Controlled exposure: It’s also possible that the documentary is a way to gauge public interest while maintaining a tight grip on what information is deemed acceptable. Similar to historical moments of controlled disclosure, the gatekeepers might believe that by endorsing certain narratives or figures, they can mitigate the risks of more extreme or unauthorized disclosures that could arise if the topic continues to gain momentum unchecked.
Limited impact: Your point about the potential impact of the documentary is crucial. The gatekeepers may very well believe that the content won’t resonate widely, assuming that the average viewer will find the material either too far-fetched or not compelling enough to shift pre-existing beliefs.
Cultural context: Finally, it’s essential to consider the cultural climate. With the proliferation of conspiracy theories and alternative narratives over the internet, the traditional methods of secrecy have faced challenges. Maybe allowing the documentary is a way to recontextualize the discussion around UFOs for a digital-savvy audience that craves more transparency.
In any case, it’ll be fascinating to see how the documentary is received and whether it does indeed spark significant public interest or debate. Regardless, the conversation around UFOs and government disclosure is likely to continue evolving, and ‘Age of Disclosure’ could be a pivotal moment in that journey.