Here’s a few reasons why I think we’re unlikely to get Disclosure anytime soon:
- The government has nothing to gain by admitting it. There’s plenty of confirmed proof that the government has known UAP were real and non-terrestrial since the 1950s. https://www.scribd.com/document/517244124/12-Declassified-Government-Documents-that-Take-UFOs-Seriously-Historian-Richard-M-Dolan
They then made the decision to hide it, and that’s where we’ve been ever since. Whistleblowers have testified that there are crash retrieval programs and that they can provide receipts, but the programs themselves are locked up so tightly that no one can get into them. But the same whistleblowers have provided those receipts to members of Congress who have confirmed that they’re there, and we know this too.
- The government has a lot to lose in admitting it. If they come clean, they have to admit they lied about potentially the most important thing to ever happen to humanity. They have to admit they investigated the abduction phenomenon and didn’t tell the public, and that they can do nothing to prevent it (or potentially agreed to some of it). They have to admit the government is not under Executive control. They have to once again admit they don’t know where a lot of the money goes. They have to admit that a small group of people has had access to technology that would fundamentally better life on our planet and didn’t share it. The list goes on and on.
- Our adversaries could benefit. Any information released could have unintended consequences. Whoever cracks antigravity technology first rules the planet. You could take a skyscraper into space and bring it down on a major city with instant acceleration to 24,000 MPH (the estimated speed of the TicTac) and it would cause worldwide mayhem. If they figure out how to alter people’s sensory experiences and create high strangeness it would be a literal nightmare.
- It threatens the scientific establishment. High strangeness is not compatible with a materialist ontology, which is why it’s so controversial. Any in-depth examination of the data associated with UAP quickly goes beyond nuts and bolts. People who merely witness a UAP often go on to start experiencing things like psi phenomenon, at least in the short term. Many have the sense that the objects were aware of them and knew their thoughts, or were even putting on a display solely for them.
- The nature of contact experiences is inextricably and deeply rooted in high strangeness. Researchers like Vallée and Burkes have done a good job showing the strong psychological/subconscious component of contact experiences (which is in line with other kinds of anomalous experience such as NDE). Unless you’ve experienced this firsthand, there’s no good reason to believe it because doing so requires you to abandon the materialist worldview and accept that there are phenomenon which do not conform to rational analysis. As a result…
- People who’ve had contact experiences often sound unhinged. People, particularly Experiencers, are desperate for explanations. Since there’s little reliable research data out there, they fill the void with whatever narrative comes closest to fitting both what they experienced and their existing worldview, whether it’s angels or demons, starseeds, technological AI, or new age metaphysics. Since the things they experienced are “trans-rational” they find themselves now willing to at least be open minded to pretty much anything, which at a glance makes them appear gullible or delusional. Scientists who research Experiencers often call this “fantasy proneness,” without acknowledging that anything anomalous which a person experiences is labeled “fantasy” by the current establishment. Thankfully it is starting to be taken more seriously. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8764292/
The skeptics often say there’s “no evidence,” related to UAP, which is very misleading. There is evidence, with some caveats:
-
Some of it is only accessible to people in our government, although a growing number of people in Congress and the intelligence community say they’ve seen some of it and were quickly persuaded.
-
Much of it is anecdotal, although anecdotal evidence has value if you have enough of it. To quote Garry Nolan, “Anecdotal evidence by credible witnesses, especially when they describe similar observations, is data. Some of the most important discoveries in the history of science were not observed under controlled laboratory conditions.“ The government has studied Experiencers and related phenomenon for decades and they have some very credible witnesses. I’ve spoken to some of the people researched by those like Dr. Kit Green (who has worked for the CIA), and their stories are not public but are profoundly strange.
-
People like Dr. Jim Segala are demonstrating that there are recordable physical signatures associated with anomalous experience (including from some of the witnesses I mentioned above), such as bursts of gamma radiation which don’t fit any known possible cause. https://youtu.be/HoIaVvU-VUE?si=RQGH7__3-dkJ372L
-
Many of the skeptics say there’s no evidence without ever having looked for it, because they assume it would be public knowledge or accepted by scientists if there is. They don’t understand how high the stigma value is associated with these phenomenon. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03351-4
They also don’t realize that scientists—even ones who research parapsychological phenomenon—don’t have the resources to investigate something if they can’t publish papers on it, and mainstream journals will not accept them. Even Wikipedia has been shown to go to great lengths to ridicule these subjects, in some cases outright lying about the conclusions of researchers if they have confirmatory findings (such as the Falcon Lake incident and radiation causes).
You’re not even allowed to mention mainstream news stories on the largest news subreddit or you’ll be banned—you can’t even mention the name of that subreddit on r/UFOs because reddit itself threatened them. The only stories posted there are ones which are critical of the subject. This is a microcosm of a much bigger problem, which is that the narrative is heavily controlled—it’s not just a conspiracy theory. Google is well known for suppressing not just stories about these subjects, but scholarly research into anything “woo:”
Mark Boccuzzi of the Windbridge Research Center was correct: Google Scholar does not easily index articles from the peer-reviewed journals that investigate exploratory scientific topics, making them difficult to locate. Who decided that? I also read, frankly, many quite aggressive and condescending takedowns of anyone affiliated with ideas outside the dogma of scientific materialism.
Source: Proof of Spiritual Phenomena: A Neuroscientist’s Discovery of the Ineffable Mysteries of the Universe by Mona Sobhani, PhD
I think the only hope for initiating disclosure is going to come from outside of the government, and then it’ll slowly start to come out from within (likely starting with an admission that NASA found bacteria on Mars or something, and creeping forward from there).
For whatever reason, countless people are having contact initiated by NHI, but that doesn’t tend to help alter the views of anyone but the person themselves. It would seem that the NHI are willing to reveal their existence, but not to everyone. The criteria for being contacted remains a mystery, although there’s tons of bad and misleading info floating around (including Elizondo recently associating it in his book with Native American ancestry, which ignores that Experiencers are a worldwide phenomenon).
I spent a long time trying to persuade the skeptics and came to the conclusion that many of them are unfortunately the equivalent of religious zealots who worship a book they never read and a theology they don’t understand. I was disheartened to find that pseudoskeptical attitudes weren’t the subset but the norm. I think a lot of this is due to people like James Randi who glorified using ridicule, deceit, and ad hominem attacks to make his case instead of solely sticking to scientific principles, let alone ethical ones. https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/james-randi/mitch-horowitz-the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism/
What we can all do to help further exploration of this topic is stop bickering over the attitudes of the believers vs the non-believers and start seriously discussing the information that’s available without using ridicule to attack either the ideas themselves or the people who are promoting them.
We also need to be asking a lot more questions and making fewer pronouncements—the truth is that there are few experts on this topic, and the ones there are have a small view of the whole because the topic is incredibly complex and multidisciplinary. When you see someone post a personal sighting or experience here, how often do you see anyone ask questions (without being condescending or judgmental)?