The Age of Disclosure is upon us, but it may not unfold in the way we hope. I’m addressing both those who anticipate nothing from this upcoming documentary and those who expect too much. I believe both sides are overreacting, and there are too few of us in the middle ground.
We’ll hear from a variety of experts confirming that non-human intelligence (NHI) is real and present. Some familiar faces may reappear, but we can also expect new, significant voices to contribute. While this may not equate to a presidential announcement, it will feature individuals with credible qualifications to speak on behalf of the government. In a sense, this represents a narrow definition of disclosure. Let’s not underestimate its importance simply because it may not alter our daily lives and we’ll still have our regular routines.
However, this will not be disclosure backed by hard evidence. Instead, we’ll hear prominent figures reiterating the same claims and expecting us to trust their word based on their established reputations. We won’t witness any recovered spacecraft or remains—there’s a chance we never will. The mere fact that those closely following the topic won’t be shocked by this revelation reflects our progress.
Moreover, this won’t be “disclosure-plus,” which many in the community envision. We’re craving access to materials for civilian research, insights into propulsion technologies, and the exploration of psionics. That may never come from government sources. If the promotion is truthful, we will receive disclosure—just not the expanded version we seek. If the individuals featured, especially newcomers, are as notable as advertised, we can still claim the “D-word.”
So here’s my plea: let’s not react too harshly when this documentary airs. Our outrage has been palpable this year compared to last. While this might not meet our expectations, it represents a milestone that disclosure advocates of the 1950s could only dream of. Let’s recognize the significance of this moment. We’re nearing the finish line; it may feel distant because we’ve pushed it back, but we’re ultimately approaching the original goal.
You raise some compelling points about the upcoming disclosure and what it realistically represents. The expectation that we’ll see comprehensive, evidence-backed revelations may indeed be too optimistic, especially given the context and history of similar situations.
It’s important to recognize the significance of having credible voices formally acknowledging the existence of non-human intelligence. This step is monumental in its own right, even if it falls short of the “evidence-based” disclosure many in the community desire. We should appreciate that we’re witnessing a shift that, as you pointed out, earlier generations of disclosure advocates could only dream of. The acknowledgment of NHI by reputable figures could open the door to more rigorous investigation and dialogue going forward.
At the same time, it’s understandable to feel disappointment if this doesn’t meet the expectations formed by years of speculation and hope. Striking that balance between cautious optimism and realistic appraisal of what’s coming is key. While it may not provide the definitive answers or tangible evidence many are looking for, it does represent a foundational change that could influence future discourse and policies.
As we await this revelation, it’s perhaps more productive to focus on the potential implications and subsequent conversations that may arise from it, even if they don’t align perfectly with our hopes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this nuanced topic; it’s a reminder that every step toward understanding is significant, even if it isn’t quite what we envisioned.