The Age of Disclosure film

[jimmyslippin]

Technology that we can't replicate today, that's been around since at least the 40s, and we don't know who's it is or where it came from (or maybe someone does, but not AARO). That's the reality, as much as you'd like it not to be.

He doesn't think it's aliens, but that doesn't make the mystery go away. It might not be aliens. Or it could be. Or it could be both aliens, and our own technology derived from recovered alien technology. We don't know. You don't know.

You're making quite a few assumptions from that Steven Greenstreet interview.

What Phillips says is somewhat interesting, but it's not amazing. You'll note that when Phillips starts talking about black triangles he immediately launches into attempting to describe their appearance and performance characteristics based on what people reported they had seen... When Greenstreet asks him to clarify if the evidence he had seen of these "black triangles" comes from images, videos or reports, Phillips says "all of the above."

So the next logical question would be, do the videos support the eyewitness claims regarding performance characteristics, but Greenstreet doesn't ask it.

Also, if they don't know what it is, then how do they know it is a form of technology?

 

[Mendel]

Technology that we can't replicate today,

his clarification implies that China or Russia can

that's been around since at least the 40s,

not what he said

and we don't know who's it is or where it came from (or maybe someone does, but not AARO).

yes, but that doesn't allow you to substitute your imagination

That's the reality, as much as you'd like it not to be.

we've found that these things turn out to be people deceiving themselves more often than not, and that's proven.
What you describe is speculation born from lack of knowledge.

Phillips wouldn't think it wasn't aliens if there was something fundamentally strange about it.

And we've been over this in the other thread. Is Tim Phillips even in this film?

 

[Mendel]

Beyond the words spoken here the three camera setup here is really all you need to know about the film as a whole.

To be explicit, this setup is used so the director can cut and splice what people say in the editing room without the cuts looking jarring. If you have a single camera, then every cut telegraphs "hey, something they said is missing". He's using this setup because he is not making interviews, he's making a carefully crafted accumulation of sound bites. Propaganda.

 

[Chief Gleeby]

To anyone that watched it (I will not): does Elizondo's psychic powers come up at all? Him torturing people in Guantanomo from the other side of the world with his mind?

Nope! Neither do the multi-colored orbs that kept pestering him and his neighbors.

 

[JMartJr]

We don't know. You don't know.

It could be magic fairies using their enchantments to make us see UFOs instead of seeing their magical fairy stuff, which they prefer to keep secret because they are shy. I don't know. You don't know.

A way we can know stuff is by looking at the evidence. The evidence does not support any claim of magical fairies, nor of Aliens form Omicron Persei 8. The evidence has been looked at repeatedly, but when this happens it gets an answer that UFO believers do not want, so it is rejected as "it wasn't independent enough" or "it was a cover up" and the show just keeps rolling along.

Technology that we can't replicate today, that's been around since at least the 40s, and we don't know who's it is or where it came from

There are no examples of such technology, to my knowledge, and it is a subject I've paid some attention to for coming up on 50 years now. If you have a concrete example of such technology, please share it.

(But yeah, CLAIMS about UFOs have been around at least since the 40s, longer than that if you include the phantom airships of the 1890s, WAY longer than that if you buy into the Ancient Aliens stuff or the Spaceships of Ezekiel. And we are told they crash fairly frequently. Does it strike you as significant that in all that time, we have no piece of provably alien debris or tech to look at? In nearly 80 years -- or 120 years, or thousands of years, depending on when you believe it all started? The fact that this has been going on a long time and we've found nothing is not a strong argument for your case, I think!)

 

[Todd Feinman]

It was already urgent a long time ago. Some of the statements by some of the people in the doc just reiterate that urgency.



Tim Phillips of AARO said they have hard evidence of things we can't replicate today.

Nobody should be forced to study the evidence if they don't want to. I think a lot of people will want to.



Speak for yourself. I think a lot of people care a lot. If we have to, let's have a pubic vote.

The arguments between the camps have been going on for so long, and are tedious. Metabunk performs an important function by cutting through much of the nonsense and unsubstantiated beliefs around the UFO subject, by maintaining hard skepticism (that there is no core of truth to the phenomenon). Everyone needs that, even if you have had an encounter yourself. Like maggots cleaning a wound, let them do their work, and let the chips fall where they may. If you really are comfortable with your assessment that UFOs are "real", then there should be no stress around the matter; I have no stress around the matter.
Metabunk will ultimately be triumphant, or… will be wrong in assessing that there is nothing extraordinary going on.

We all know the criteria for evidence of an anomalous phenomenon that would be convincing for Mick and other members of Metabunk. Things that are untestable are not within the purview of Metabunk. I'm sure all members here would love to run across something truly extraordinary. Let's hope that happens for skeptics.

 

[Giddierone]

How should the "6 Observables" be ordered? Elizondo lists them as:

1. Hypersonic velocities without signatures: Traveling at extremely high speeds (hypersonic) without the sonic booms or other signatures, such as heat trails, that are normally associated with such speeds.
2. Instantaneous acceleration: The ability to accelerate or change direction instantly, without the need for a gradual buildup of speed.
3. Low observability: The capability to become stealthy, either by being difficult to detect by radar or visually, or by using camouflage to mimic its surroundings.
4. Trans-medium travel: The ability to move seamlessly between different mediums, such as air, water, or space, without losing speed or changing form.
5. Anti-gravity lift: The apparent ability to move against gravity with no visible means of propulsion, such as wings, rotors, or jet engines.
6. Biological Effects

But, if something has "Low Observability" how would we be able to measure it doing any of the other 5 things, or if it is in fact the same thing, or any thing at all? Do "they" turn that one off momentarily to allow observation? Why would "they" do that?

(Note: I think they just added #6 to the list to give Garry Nolan something to sound important talking about).

 

[Jack Mallory]

One particular issue that continues to pop up in online debates about the Age of Disclosure is this notion that, "It's not targeted at you, it's not meant for you, it's meant for the normies." I've long-since lost count of how many times I've encountered that defense of the film. But, to me, it's an argument that simply doesn't hold water.

Many of the key points of the film have already been pushed the main stream media, in the most conspicuous way possible—for decades now.

Bob Salas, Bob Jacobs and Robert Hastings appeared on CNN's Larry King Show back in 2008 talking about both the supposed Malstrom and Vandenberg incidents. At the time, Larry King was very much a household name. That was as mainstream as it gets.

In addition to countless TV appearances from many of the key players since then, we've also witnessed seemingly-endless podcast episodes that frequently gain far more viewership than even the most prominent of mainstream outlets. If "normies" are the target audience for Age of Disclosure (an argument that was also used to justify Elizondo's book tour on main stream TV, and is equally applied to previous documentaries on the topic) what could be more "mainstream" than the following examples?


December 2017: The New York Times publishes (on the front page, no less!) The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program
August 2021: 60 Minutes features David Fravor and Alex Dietrich in their recounting of the Nimitz incident.
May 2022: The first, recent public Congressional hearing on UAPs takes place.
March 2023: Ryan Graves first appeared on CNN's Alisyn Camerota's show to discuss UAPs.
June 2023: David Grusch first appears on NewsNation to discuss UAP/NHI with Ross Coulthart.
August 2024: Lue Elizondo appeared on CBS Mornings to discuss his upcoming book on the subject.
November 2024: The second Congressional hearing on UAPs takes place.

The above list is merely a small sampling, as many of those same people appeared multiple times on multiple outlets, in addition to many others not named here. My point is: Who, in 2025, are these supposed "normies" that somehow missed out on all of the above—which was freely and readily accessible to all—yet are expected to watch a new film on the topic that requires a less-than-modest investment up front?

What most people within the "UFO Community" can never seem to quite grasp is that the average person spends exceedingly little time or effort in pursuit of the topic. They just don't. Even with all the MSM milestones listed above, I have only experienced one, single time, where just one, single friend of mine (other than those already versed in the topic) even mentioned the subject at all as a result. It was shortly after the May 2022 Congressional hearings, and he simply said to me, "Did you see that thing on the news about aliens? Could you imagine? That'd be weird, huh?" And that was literally the extent of the conversation. No ontological shock noticed.

For what it's worth, most of my friends are extremely curious by nature, and we regularly have long-lasting, wide-reaching conversations covering a tremendous range of topics. But do know what practically never comes up? The subject of UFOs, aliens or anything even related. I have a couple of close friends who, along with me, have followed the topic since the 1980s. But anyone else in my inner-circle? Nope. It's just simply never part of the equation. With that in mind, I'd very curious to know if anyone on this forum experiences any of their friends, relatives or acquaintances giving them any unprompted feedback whatsoever on The Age of Disclosure. Even the acknowledgement of simply having watched it at all would be noteworthy. But I'm guessing there won't be much of that. So, again: Who is the film meant to be for?

 

[Giddierone]

the average person spends exceedingly little time or effort in pursuit of the topic.

Yeah, it's a fringe topic of little or no consequence for most people. I find that people who don't talk about UFOs every day, don't talk about them any day.

 

[jdog]

One particular issue that continues to pop up in online debates about the Age of Disclosure is this notion that, "It's not targeted at you, it's not meant for you, it's meant for the normies." I've long-since lost count of how many times I've encountered that defense of the film. But, to me, it's an argument that simply doesn't hold water.
...

For what it's worth, most of my friends are extremely curious by nature, and we regularly have long-lasting, wide-reaching conversations covering a tremendous range of topics. But do know what practically never comes up? The subject of UFOs, aliens or anything even related. I have a couple of close friends who, along with me, have followed the topic since the 1980s. But anyone else in my inner-circle? Nope. It's just simply never part of the equation. With that in mind, I'd very curious to know if anyone on this forum experiences any of their friends, relatives or acquaintances giving them any unprompted feedback whatsoever on The Age of Disclosure. Even the acknowledgement of simply having watched it at all would be noteworthy. But I'm guessing there won't be much of that. So, again: Who is the film meant to be for?

One of the recurring complaints on /r/ufos is about not being able to get spouses/relatives/friends/coworkers to engage with the poster about their UFO beliefs. I'm not sure forcing them to watch a $20-to-rent talking head video will move that needle much, at least not in the desired direction.

Curiously, on Amazon there's a whole secondary market of freshly-posted books trying to take advantage of the doc. And you know Conrad T. Wallace is legit, he's put out at least six books this month alone. (Liam Coren is a piker with only two books this month, compared to Rudy E Larson's 13.):

 

[Mendel]

Curiously, on Amazon there's a whole secondary market of freshly-posted books trying to take advantage of the doc.

Pretty sure this are not written by AI. Or if they are, someone edited and proofread them, after painstakingly assembling finessed prompts. Or maybe they didn't, and it's just a quick, shoddy cash-grab aimed at a gullible demographic. I wouldn't know.

 

[JMartJr]

, I'd very curious to know if anyone on this forum experiences any of their friends, relatives or acquaintances giving them any unprompted feedback whatsoever on The Age of Disclosure. Even the acknowledgement of simply having watched it at all would be noteworthy.

I have never seen/heard it mentioned other than here and through social media posts by folks I do not know, pushed by the various algorithms.

 

[Gary C]

I have never seen/heard it mentioned other than here and through social media posts by folks I do not know, pushed by the various algorithms.

Not surprising ...

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/conspiracy-theorists-don’t-realize-they’re-on-the-fringe.14352/

 

[MapperGuy]

I recommend we form a large diverse panel of trustworthy scientists and experts. Give them the security clearances to see all of the evidence. Make absolutely sure it's not just some of the evidence, has to be all. Put Roger Penrose, Terrance Tau, Avi Loeb, Mick West, Lisa Randall, Leonard Susskind, and some 500 others on it. Enough people with relevant expertise and public trust, that it covers all relevant domains of inquiry and sides. Split them into independent groups. Each group studies the evidence in depth, and then publishes the results of their assessment. The panels are updated or expanded regularly, and the independent investigations go on indefinitely.

But what happens when they assemble these people, say "All of the evidence is in the next room", then open the door, and it's an empty room?
Too many people are so,so,so convinced that there is vast quantities of evidence that nothing short of vast quantities of evidence will every be accepted. When all you have is a few unknows that may not point to ET's at all what is the result?
Claims of lies and coverups and conspiracies....
And the cycle begins again.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Speaking of the trailer: If you've watched that, then you've essentially watched the entire film. Director Dan Farah has no qualms about baiting the potential audience in with edge-of-the-seat claims from the likes of Jay Stratton who states, quite emphatically: "I have seen, with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings." With a teaser like that in the trailer, how could you not want to invest your hard-earned money in watching this film? If they make claims like that in the trailer, just imagine the depth of information that must surely be present in the full-length feature!

Well, wouldn't ya' know it? That very clip comes up within the first seven minutes of the film. Exactly as it appears in the trailer. And guess what? There is zero follow-up on that statement throughout the remaining 100+ minutes of the documentary. Nada. Zilch. Zip. The most fantastical and outrageous claim of the entire film is allowed to pass without a single moment of curiosity as to the validity of such a wild claim. Literally none. Like tossing a coin into a wishing well, then walking away without giving any of it a further thought. He's not pressed for details regard the supposed craft or beings. We're not given the slightest clue as to where, when or under what circumstances this supposed event occurred. Nor are we ever granted the courtesy of the usual types of disclaimers whereby outlandish proclamations are so often followed by, "I'd love to tell you more, but it's classified." Nope. Not even that. It's just a throwaway statement with zero context and zero follow-up offered. Truly astounding. That, alone, should completely disqualify this embarrassing charade.

Did Stratton say he saw "non-human craft and non-human beings" as part of his official government duties? Because I would think it's probably referring to the alleged orbs, shadow people and werewolves/dogmen that supposedly stalked his home after visiting Skinwalker Ranch (Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, pp. 26-29). But going into those details would undermine the "credible witnesses" angle.

 

[Jack Mallory]

Did Stratton say he saw "non-human craft and non-human beings" as part of his official government duties?

Nope. That one quote of his, "I have seen, with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings" was the entirety of that particular segment. No further elaboration was touched on whatsoever. This is why I don't take Dan Farah seriously in the slightest.

 

[Ann K]

Instantaneous acceleration: The ability to accelerate or change direction instantly, without the need for a gradual buildup of speed.

Translation: The ability to accelerate without accelerating.

The whole list (well, maybe not the last, if it's devoid of any description) sounds like "trust me, bro, but we aren't able to see these observables."

 

[Ann K]

So, again: Who is the film meant to be for?

It's for the normies gullible.

 

[Mendel]

(Note: I think they just added #6 to the list to give Garry Nolan something to sound important talking about).

"Biological Effects" appeals to the 5G/Havana effect crowd, and acknowledges those experiencers that got "radiation burns" or put a hair dryer to their skin.

(Not kidding, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...nigma-that-looks-like-hair-dryer-burns.12548/ of 3 years ago.)

 

[Giddierone]

Translation: The ability to accelerate without accelerating.

The whole list (well, maybe not the last, if it's devoid of any description) sounds like "trust me, bro, but we aren't able to see these observables."

It's just such a nonsense make-believe list. It's like something concocted by a D&D Dungeon Master. We have this trickster phenomenon that allows us to detect some of its characteristics, yet it is elusive, defying observation. Yet, we're led to believe that certain gatekeepers have seen the data that will ontologically rock our world. No wonder normies are too busy going about their days.

 

[Gary C]

How should the "6 Observables" be ordered? Elizondo lists them as:

1. Hypersonic velocities without signatures: Traveling at extremely high speeds (hypersonic) without the sonic booms or other signatures, such as heat trails, that are normally associated with such speeds.
2. Instantaneous acceleration: The ability to accelerate or change direction instantly, without the need for a gradual buildup of speed.
3. Low observability: The capability to become stealthy, either by being difficult to detect by radar or visually, or by using camouflage to mimic its surroundings.
4. Trans-medium travel: The ability to move seamlessly between different mediums, such as air, water, or space, without losing speed or changing form.
5. Anti-gravity lift: The apparent ability to move against gravity with no visible means of propulsion, such as wings, rotors, or jet engines.
6. Biological Effects

But, if something has "Low Observability" how would we be able to measure it doing any of the other 5 things, or if it is in fact the same thing, or any thing at all? Do "they" turn that one off momentarily to allow observation? Why would "they" do that?

(Note: I think they just added #6 to the list to give Garry Nolan something to sound important talking about).

1. The lack of signatures is evidence that hypersonic velocities were not involved. Also no verifiable hypersonic velocities have ever been independently recorded using appropriate instruments.
2. "Instantaneous" acceleration is evidence that a physical mass is not the cause of the observed effect.
3. Low Observability is evidence that conditions are present which interfere with the collection of accurate data.
4. Trans-medium transitions without producing observable effects required by the laws of physics is evidence of an optical illusion or of #3 above interfering in accurate observations for the reasons @Giddierone stated.
5. Anti-gravity lift assumes an object of significant mass is being observed when neither the mass or even the presence of said object can be independently established.
6. Biological Effects as compared to what control group?

The very properties they cite as common to their best cases is evidence that their cases are not, in fact, very good.

 

[jackfrostvc]

It's amazing that mainstream media has not called out all the lets say "Questionable" stuff a number of the people in the doco have said in the past. Did they do no research?

 

[JMartJr]

Biological Effects" appeals to the 5G/Havana effect crowd, and acknowledges those experiencers that got "radiation burns" or put a hair dryer to their skin.

Left over from the Golden Age of Flying Saucers, might this also include animal reactions, wilted or stimulated-growth in plants and cattle mutilations?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Did they do no research?

Probably not, and why would they? They have a press release from a Hollywood director that worked with Spielberg saying aliens are real, so just go with it. That's clicks and engagement. In the time a reporter would spend trying to understand AWWSAP vs AATIP or looking up the kooky proclamations made by the likes of Puthoff and Davis, their boss would be figuring out how to replace them with AI.

Even the article I linked to up thread from the vaunted Guardian was just a regurgitation of whatever Farah was claiming. The reporter mentioned the idea of some sort of skeptical push back, but just went with Farah's claim that any skepticism would cloud the narrative.

 

[Jack Mallory]

They have a press release from a Hollywood director that worked with Spielberg saying aliens are real, so just go with it.

I thought Steven summed up the typical self-replicating loop of the media quite well with this post:

 

[Jack Mallory]

I really have to wonder. Are accolades such as this even real?

At the risk of curating an endless list of these, I had to include this next one as well.
To me, this perfectly encapsulates the inability of those too close to the topic to maintain any sort of healthy objectivity.

One more. I just couldn't resist.

 

[jplaza]

How should the "6 Observables" be ordered? Elizondo lists them as:

1. Hypersonic velocities without signatures: Traveling at extremely high speeds (hypersonic) without the sonic booms or other signatures, such as heat trails, that are normally associated with such speeds.
2. Instantaneous acceleration: The ability to accelerate or change direction instantly, without the need for a gradual buildup of speed.
3. Low observability: The capability to become stealthy, either by being difficult to detect by radar or visually, or by using camouflage to mimic its surroundings.
4. Trans-medium travel: The ability to move seamlessly between different mediums, such as air, water, or space, without losing speed or changing form.
5. Anti-gravity lift: The apparent ability to move against gravity with no visible means of propulsion, such as wings, rotors, or jet engines.
6. Biological Effects

1. ISS travels at 7 km/s without any sonic boom. ISS is a UAP
2. Flies exhibit instantaneous accelerations, changing directions in very abrupt ways. Just try catching one. Flies are UAPs
3. Stealth fighters like F-35 are UAP.
4. Hovercrafts are UAPs. Interncontinental Ballistic Missiles are UAP
5. Balloons do not have means of propulsion. Balloons are UAP.
6. Drop a stone on your feet. You will get a biological effect in the form of pain. Stones are UAP.

Now, if they mean that a UAP must show ALL of the observables simultaneously, I bet they have none.

 

[weapon2010]

What is your guys opinion of why these high level people in this movie , about 30 of them , say the things they say ? making extraordinary claims? I don't understand their motivation. These are very serious highly educated and decorated people.How does it benefit them?

 

[Mauro]

What is your guys opinion of why these high level people in this movie , about 30 of them , say the things they say ? making extraordinary claims? I don't understand their motivation. These are very serious highly educated and decorated people.How does it benefit them?

Should be a topic for a new thread, but briefly, they need to believe in magic to feel comfortable in the world.

 

[jarlrmai]

High level people are not immune to magical thinking.

The US government in the form of Senator Harry Reid and Robert Bigelow used money and influence to establish a program within the US government which essentially put people who already thought magically into those high level positions.

The funding was cut off and the programmes were cancelled so they left the system but used their influence and previous positions to reference their own claims as being those of the US government.

 

[Jack Mallory]

What is your guys opinion of why these high level people in this movie , about 30 of them , say the things they say ? making extraordinary claims? I don't understand their motivation. These are very serious highly educated and decorated people.How does it benefit them?

Personally, I think the motivations/reasons vary amongst the individuals.

I suspect that some are true believers who have come across just enough "evidence" to fuel their beliefs and confirm their bias, which is then reinforced by others in the same camp. The Collective then gains momentum as they fuel an infinite feedback loop of their own making.

I also have little doubt that some of them are simply continuing in the tradition of Richard Doty with deliberate disinfo aimed at sowing confusion and redirecting the public's (and media's) attention away from either legitimate classified programs, or to create an endless web of misdirection for our adversaries.

In addition, there are probably some who have no qualms about inserting themselves into the narrative for either pure ego gratification or to possibly capitalize on commercial opportunities that may arise from doing so.

Lastly, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that at least a few of the Usual Suspects suffer from some sort of mental illness or serious chemical imbalance—career highlights and resumes aside.

 

[weapon2010]

they need to believe in magic to feel comfortable in the world.

Isn't that statement just as lacking in fact or evidence as the claims they make ? I'm not on either side of this , but I would like to attempt to try and understand it , we don't see the same caliber of people talking about Bigfoot and the Lochness monster , we don't see any congressional hearings into Bigfoot or sworn testimony, there clearly is something going on , I'm not sure what though. We can not use the same logic against the UFO believers that you claim they use to say its real.

 

[weapon2010]

tradition of Richard Doty with deliberate disinfo aimed at sowing confusion

now that makes some sense , and is a possible answer , but what is the pupose of that disinfo and who orchestrates it?

 

[weapon2010]

so hundreds of people are in on the "disinfo campaign"? thats as crazy as all the aliens are in on keeping it a secret. This whole thing drives me insane

 

[Jack Mallory]

now that makes some sense , and is a possible answer , but what is the pupose of that disinfo and who orchestrates it?

The purpose? I explained it pretty clearly in my initial response.

so hundreds of people are in on the "disinfo campaign"? thats as crazy as all the aliens are in on keeping it a secret. This whole thing drives me insane

I said "some" and yet you're referring to "hundreds." Are we even talking about the same thing?

 

[Mauro]

(from post #152, @weapon2010, weird formatting made it difficult to reply directly)

Isn't that statement just as lacking in fact or evidence as the claims they make ? I'm not on either side of this , but I would like to attempt to try and understand it , we don't see the same caliber of people talking about Bigfoot and the Lochness monster , we don't see any congressional hearings into Bigfoot or sworn testimony, there clearly is something going on , I'm not sure what though. We can not use the same logic against the UFO believers that you claim they use to say its real.

Not a topic for this thread, so I did not further elaborate on it. But you can open a new thread, ie. in chit chat, if you want to discuss this (I'm also sure there have already been discussions here on the 'motivations' topic, no time to look for them now though, sorry, they are probably spread around in many threads).

 

[weapon2010]

My " hundreds" I am referring to is the amount of people over the years that are military people , pilots, Navy personel ,upper level people in government. So if all of them are not part of the disinfo campaign ( which there is no evidence of just like aliens) that means some are telling what they believe to be true , its a tangled twisted mess that neither side can prove their case.

 

[Mendel]

It's just such a nonsense make-believe list. It's like something concocted by a D&D Dungeon Master. We have this trickster phenomenon that allows us to detect some of its characteristics, yet it is elusive, defying observation.

The list is a collection of "they can't debunk this" statements. It's strictly reactive.

A pro-active list would start with what we expect NHI to do, and what we would expect their craft to look like, the way we can tell a helicopter from a fighter jet. Or my proposal of an alien craft entering the solar system and going into orbit, which is pretty much what 99% of all spacecraft visiting a foreign planet do in science fiction, because it makes sense. It's what we do with probes and craft we send into space (moons, planets).

But despite over 70 years of research, "ufology" still has no idea what UFOs are like; all they know is what they're not like because everything else gets debunked immediately. So this list is a collection of "this will prevent an obvious debunk" while at the same time suggesting very strongly that a misperception is in play, because we know what air and water and gravity and inertia and light do, and this ain't it.

 

[Mendel]

What is your guys opinion of why these high level people in this movie , about 30 of them , say the things they say ? making extraordinary claims? I don't understand their motivation. These are very serious highly educated and decorated people.How does it benefit them?

There's a bunch of them that have joined the "UFO community", which is very rewarding and makes them feel important. Very few people get to testify to Congress, and a lot of people on the documentary have attended the hearing like a social event. They get to give talks at festivals and conferences. A certain personality type craves that.
That community also repeats certain things among themselves until they believe it, and push it out as "truth". Hence this film.

Politicians will try to avoid alienating constituents, and they'll say vague things that then get quoted out of context. Some scientists get money/grants for their work if they can frame it as "looking for ET life" or "looking for threats"; it seems to me that this is a backdoor by which AI surveillance is being readied.

Some people think "it's possible" and keep their mind too open. The idea that these perceived mysteries are explainable requires being comfortable with your own fallibility.

If there's a specific quote you want us to look at, we can do that, and possibly already have.

 

[FatPhil]

so hundreds of people are in on the "disinfo campaign"? thats as crazy as all the aliens are in on keeping it a secret. This whole thing drives me insane

A disinformation *campaign* can be quite small. However, it can recruit stooges who will willingly continue the spread of the misinformation. Enough of those, and it can become not just self-supporting, but self-propagating, with no need for the original pushers to be active, or even alive, any more. (Fans of Mitchell and Webb's comedy will now also be thinking "Vectron"...)