The Age of Disclosure film

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlesinsandiego
  • Start date Start date
@Charlesinsandiego

External Quote:
The film contends there has been an 80-year cover-up of the existence of non-human intelligent life and a secret war among major nations to reverse engineer UFO technology.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...sure-ufo-documentary-trailer-sxsw-1236114831/

Considering the number of people that would be required to keep a secret over "80 years" and an unnamed number of "major nations", I think your skepticism is entirely justified.

External Quote:

Jay Stratton, Luis Elizondo and Marco Rubio in 'Age of Disclosure.'

Jay Stratton, Luis Elizondo and Marco Rubio in 'Age of Disclosure.'
 
Last edited:
Related topic: I see there are 12 seasons of "Finding Bigfoot." During which, they never find bigfoot. (They also don't find him in 6 seasons of "Expedition Bigfoot," though the title makes this less ironic.)

UFO "disclosure" has been hyped as coming "real soon now" off and on for decades. But disclosing something does not take decades, it takes minutes... if you have anything to disclose, you disclose it and everybody cheers and the world changes and ufologists are all suddenly out of work since at that point actual scientists would take over.
 
I recognize most of the ufo photos/videos they show (Calvine, Aguadilla, GoFast, Gimbal and FLIR)

But which one is this at 2:13?
1737668757277.png


Like, it's obviously something out of focus, but if it's from an already popular sighting, I don't recognize it.
 
Bunch of well-dressed white guys...need to take them seriously...
and literally zero remarkable new footage...
in the trailer, which is to show off what you've got...

Anyone who pays to see this, despite the red flags that it's another empty money grab,
kinda deserves to be out the price of admission...
 
It is being featured at South by Southwest festival, so I expect a lot of hoopla. If the skeptic community does a good job of deflating it with evidence maybe some good will come out of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Three things stand out:
1) why can americans not get the plural of "phenomenon" correct?
2) It's amusing that the passage he's staring at inside the monument is the one that literally says not to cling to the constitution like it's a religious text - that it will need changing as time moves on. Why are so many people so unaware of that tract?
3) It's hilarious how the same garbage can be respun over and over and over again, does the audience have the memory of pondlife?
 
2025-03-09_10-23-33.jpg


Premiers today, with two showings. The first in two hours from now.

It will be interesting to see initial reactions from the ufologists who went to SXSW specifically to see this.
 
They're making a barrel of soup out of one very small potato. My guess is that the die-hards won't care, but there will be believers who get discouraged as they observe that the evidence has not increased at all over the years, just the ballyhoo.
 
I'm more interested in how this is presented into the mainstream, most UFO enthusiasts already are aware of what will be presented and accept the stories. I think this is the NY Times story part deux, another attempt to get this into the mainstream and grab the attention of the passively interested who may not look for evidence to the contrary.
 
View attachment 78040

Premiers today, with two showings. The first in two hours from now.

It will be interesting to see initial reactions from the ufologists who went to SXSW specifically to see this.
If this was any kind of fair, they'd interview you and Greenstreet. But obviously not. They're trying to sell a story, facts be damned.
 
I think this is the NY Times story part deux, another attempt to get this into the mainstream and grab the attention of the passively interested who may not look for evidence to the contrary.
This sounds about right.
 
Two reviews so far:

https://variety.com/2025/film/reviews/the-age-of-disclosure-review-sxsw-1236332637/
External Quote:
The evidence, if you truly look at it, isn't all that compelling: blurry black-and-white U.S. government video footage that shows tiny objects zipping forward over the surface of the water. It's the footage of aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots that we all saw back in 2021, when it was declassified. It's fascinating to look at but quite inconclusive. It's hardly the stuff that alien dreams are made of.
...
The title of the film refers to the idea — or is it merely the hope? — that we now live in an age when the government is being pressured to shed its secrecy. The people want to know, and the film says: We will know. But if that's the case, then when are we actually going to be shown something that looks like more than a dupe of a dupe of an old video game depicting a blurry black dot of an alien spaceship cruising over water at what looks to be about 300 miles per hour?

I'll believe it when I see it.
https://www.indiewire.com/criticism...ure-review-sxsw-alien-documentary-1235100024/

External Quote:
That line of thinking eventually succumbs to the Achilles heel that brings down so many promising conspiracy theories: individual components are compelling and credible, but linking them all together into a worldview that simplifies our endlessly complex society into a single good vs. evil narrative requires gaps in logic. I'm willing to entertain the idea that certain people in the U.S. military have viewed conclusive evidence of alien technology. I'm even open to the notion that parts of the Pentagon might have felt the need to hide such information from other branches of the military and government that could have used it. But you lose me once you start insisting there's a shadow government that has spent 80 years colluding with defense contractors to hide aliens from the public by funding Hollywood movies that portray UFO observers as nutcases who lack credibility. The scientific claims are interesting enough on their own, but anyone who has encountered enough human nature should be able to tell you that we're just not that good at cooperating and keeping secrets.
So, as suspected, ardent men telling stories, the same old videos, and no new evidence.
 
A third review, also from Variety, but this one from Selome Hailu, is a bit more credulous.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/age-of-disclosure-interview-aliens-government-cover-up-1236332030/
External Quote:
The United States has been secretly working to capture UAPs — unidentified anomalous phenomena, the more formal term for UFOs — since as early as 1947, according to many high-ranking figures throughout the government, military and intelligence community. There is evidence and documentation of all kinds of findings that feel like the stuff of sci-fi: vehicles that appear to disobey the laws of physics, difficult-to-explain interference with American military activity and, indeed, the bodies of intelligent, nonhuman beings. Multiple species, at that.
 
I really like this quote.
External Quote:
That line of thinking eventually succumbs to the Achilles heel that brings down so many promising conspiracy theories: individual components are compelling and credible, but linking them all together into a worldview that simplifies our endlessly complex society into a single good vs. evil narrative requires gaps in logic. I'm willing to entertain the idea that certain people in the U.S. military have viewed conclusive evidence of alien technology. I'm even open to the notion that parts of the Pentagon might have felt the need to hide such information from other branches of the military and government that could have used it. But you lose me once you start insisting there's a shadow government that has spent 80 years colluding with defense contractors to hide aliens from the public by funding Hollywood movies that portray UFO observers as nutcases who lack credibility. The scientific claims are interesting enough on their own, but anyone who has encountered enough human nature should be able to tell you that we're just not that good at cooperating and keeping secrets.

I'm willing to entertain some aspects of conspiracies, but when shadow societies that pull all the strings start to pop up (let alone ones that last more than a generation), it just goes way over the limit of logical consistency with the universe and human society as I know it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RTM
Here's a great take on the hype around the film by The Average Chris (@AeroTech_Space on X).
Today, at @sxsw in Austin, TX, there is supposed to be a special screening of the documentary "The Age of Disclosure" (@ageofdisclosure), which is to be the culmination of a two and a half year "project" by Dan Farrah. All the big names will be there in attendance including podcasters like @AlchemyAmerican & @chrisramsay52, and there's a reason for that.

It will involve every single "big name" in the UFO field that have been pushing the government disclosure idea, but most importantly, the "Threat Narrative". That's including the now liar and fraud Lue Elizondo (@LueElizondo), who's been pushing this narrative. But why?

Creating the threat narrative and getting the attention of those who are in power to take interest in it creates a need. That need is for someone to investigate what's in the skies that is threatening the security of our nation. That need, when it has National security implications, needs to be addressed. That's how projects get started and are backed by tax-payer money to fund them. And who runs them? "Experts"

This documentary will have a lot of people with big resumes trying to make you believe there is a threat of a non-human intelligence roaming around unchecked in our skies. And to the normal person who doesn't follow this subject closely, they'll be made to believe that because of these individual's resumes, that it MUST BE TRUE!

"Look at his resume! Why would he lie?"The problem with those big resumes are they are meant to hide the more serious issue of lack of EVIDENCE to back their fantastical claims.

And nothing in this documentary will be "groundbreaking". Only even more fantastical stories with no evidence to back them. Every person in this documentary will have some kind of government/military background. There's a reason for that: the more credible the background, the more credible their claims despite the one thing that would validate them: EVIDENCE.

You won't see normal people who are experiencers or "abductees". And there's a reason for that: if you don't have a certain background, then you're just seen as crazy and not credible. As Jason Sands (@JasonTSands) found out: you'll hurt the movement.

To everyone that will watch this documentary, myself included, make sure you don't sit in awe by who is making the claim and their background, but judge it on the evidence provided. If there's no evidence, then what good is the claim? Just because you have a really important job in the government doesn't somehow mean you are not susceptible to conspiracies and notions of fantastical ideas of life outside the planet. You'd be very much surprised on how wrong that perception is.

If anything in this documentary was big, reality-shattering news, it wouldn't have taken a major production and two and a half years to bring it to a paid audience. It would be plastered on every major media outlet throughout the world. But it isn't. And you should temper your expectations of what this documentary most likely really is:

PROPAGANDA
 
Last edited:
https://variety.com/2025/film/reviews/the-age-of-disclosure-review-sxsw-1236332637/
External Quote:
The evidence, if you truly look at it, isn't all that compelling...when are we actually going to be shown something that looks like more than a dupe of a dupe of an old video...

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism...ure-review-sxsw-alien-documentary-1235100024/ ...individual components are compelling and credible...


The overall take of the Variety review gave me a little faith...

The Christian Zilko line (IndieWire), though:
"...individual components are compelling and credible..."
cheesed me off, as I'm sure it would many on this site, who have spent many hours dissecting
100+ UAP yarns, without finding a damn thing compelling or credible. :mad:
I think it's telling that he avoids actually identifying any incidents that could be
defended as "credible."

I think it's even more telling that there are (as of 18:00 PDT 3/9/25) zero reviews on Rotten
Tomatoes. That usually means that filmmakers know that they have a turd on their hands,
so they do not give critics advance screening, because they fear that those reviewers will
convey, early, that the movie sucks, to people who otherwise would have to buy a ticket
to find that out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A new review from The Hollywood Reporter's Daniel Feinberg:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...sure-review-ufos-aliens-dan-farah-1236158783/
My problem with The Age of Disclosure isn't the lack of opposing voices. It's that there couldn't be experts debunking anything here. Nothing is proven, and thus nothing can be refuted. If somebody insists, without evidence, that there's an underground bunker somewhere with a thousand alien bodies and 50 alien spacecraft, it's impossible for anybody to refute, because what are they going to say? "No there isn't." Or "Well, you just don't have the clearance to know." If someone insists, without evidence, that people they can't name were killed to keep certain things they can't say secret, what are you going to say? Any time somebody mentions vague events or details that have long been in the public record, they're quick to mention how much more they know that they can't disclose. And what can you say to that? "Nuh-uh"? Any time anybody starts sounding really wild, that's a good time to mention that the Deep State — or the so-called "Legacy Project" — has been spreading disinformation forever, calling anybody who dares to make claims a crackpot.

It's one thing for interview subjects to treat the details of Area 51/Roswell as established fact — you'll never see a better embodiment of the actual definition of "begging the question." But when the scientists start doing the same for speculation on how UPAs defy various terrestrial physical laws, I went from being intrigued and generally buying what Farah was selling to realizing this is just a basic cable exploitation doc done up with a fancy gloss. Once wanton speculation was the order of the day, I wish more time could have been spent on the ramifications of the title: What would "disclosure" look like, practically? What would the economic and sociological and geopolitical ripples look like? What's a feasible timetable for disclosure and its impact? But no, The Age of Disclosure is more interested in nebulous phraseology like "the greatest paradigm shift in human history." Some viewers will happily celebrate the fantasy, when it looks this legitimate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two reviews so far:
Including:
External Quote:
But you lose me once you start insisting there's a shadow government that has spent 80 years colluding with defense contractors to hide aliens from the public by funding Hollywood movies that portray UFO observers as nutcases who lack credibility.
(Emphasis added)

Wait, wait, wait... did they make that claim in the film?

When did THAT happen? Hollywood movies often show believers in and experiencers of UFOs as being seen as nutcases or as not being credible by others, so that they have something to struggle against when nobody believes the important truth they've uncovered -- but they are then vindicated and shown to be very credible, and the audience is shown the UFOs and aliens and it all turns out to be true. A movie about a guy who says he saw aliens and UFOs but was just a nut with no credibility would not be nearly as interesting (and thus potentially lucrative) as one where the saucers are real.

See:
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Independence Day
Invasion of the Saucer Men
E.T.
Signs
Men in Black
Paul
Batteries Not Included
Flight of the Navigator
The UFO Incident
Fire in the Sky
Earth vs. the Flying Saucers
Earth Girls are Easy
Communion
It Came From Outer Space
Invaders From Mars
The X-files
Cocoon
The Invaders
Etc. Etc. Etc.
 
I think #3 is a ufologist,
Robert Jacobs, who claims he saw a UFO shoot down a missile in 1964

2025-03-10_15-58-09.jpg

Article:
Robert Jacobs, who attended the UFO press conference via video link from Missouri, said he was a first lieutenant in the Air Force and stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in 1964 when he was asked to set up a telescope video camera to capture an Atlas rocket test.

He claims the video showed a disc-shaped craft flew up to the dummy warhead as it traveled about 8,000 mph over the Pacific Ocean, circled it and shot it with several beams of light.

"It went around the top of the warhead, fired a beam of light down on the top of the warhead," Jacobs said Tuesday. After circling, it "then flew out the frame the same way it had come in."

Jacobs, who once shopped around the story and eventually sold it to the National Enquirer tabloid, said the film footage was cut and taken at the time by two men in gray suits, and his commander ordered him not to talk about it.
 
Jacobs says the UFO shot down a 'dummy warhead'. This doesn't seem to be a worthwhile activity for an advanced alien civilisation.

Not to mention that the film Jacobs described showed an event happening more than 100 miles away, so his interpretation and memories are not likely to be reliable.
 
jay stratton says "I can print a phone book and put "UFO" on the cover, and they'll buy it"
"there's a group that will buy anything that comes out. I could print a phone book and put "UFO" on the cover, and they'd buy it. But they're not my target audience."
 
"there's a group that will buy anything that comes out. I could print a phone book and put "UFO" on the cover, and they'd buy it. But they're not my target audience."
"there's a group that will buy anything that comes out. I could print a phone book and put "UFO" on the cover, and they'd buy it. That's not the target audience for me. Dan wants everyone to watch it, but for me its that group of people that have not watched a documentary, that have not paid close attention to this topic. And i want them rivoted."

note: in my opinion, if they havent watched a documentary yet (or watched a documentary in full...like me) they wont be rivoted because they wont watch. There are already like 5000 documentaries on every channel of tv. all documentaries have the intense music and claim they are (paraphrase) "the ultimate ufo video that blows the lid off". yea yea yea. his target audience is like 30 people.
 
A couple of short reviews from the film rating app Letterboxd:

I've been rating the different beers I drink for over 20 years now, well before that hobby became even vaguely popular, and as "craft beer" (I hate the term, it's between meaningless and giving the wrong message) became popular worldwide, certain areas quickly adopted a trait we old cynics dubbed "homerism" - giving incredibly positive reviews and high scores for local beers and local bars. In groups are almost always going to be homers, and the viewers of these premiers are clearly going to be in the in group.
 
Jacobs says the UFO shot down a 'dummy warhead'. This doesn't seem to be a worthwhile activity for an advanced alien civilisation.

Not to mention that the film Jacobs described showed an event happening more than 100 miles away, so his interpretation and memories are not likely to be reliable.
Not sure shooting down a dummy warhead is not a worthwhile activity.
In the past you proffered a convincing explanation about cords or tethers used in the package that could have appeared as beams striking the dummy warhead.
 

Trending content

Back
Top