Why did the so-called ‘Deep State’ and gatekeepers allow the documentary ‘Age of Disclosure’ to be produced? Reports from various sources suggest that this upcoming film could significantly shift public perception and bring the topic into the mainstream spotlight. Featuring prominent figures like military officials and Congress members, it has the potential to resonate with a wider audience. However, I suspect it may ultimately fall short of expectations. Still, there’s a possibility it could gain traction and spark broader conversations.
Given that the gatekeepers have spent decades effectively shrouding this subject in secrecy, ridicule, and stigma, it’s puzzling why they’ve allowed this documentary to go forward. They have historically succeeded in keeping this issue under wraps, so why let a group of independent filmmakers gather such influential voices to discuss a highly classified and sensitive topic? It seems like it would have been relatively simple for them to silence any dissenting voices from Congress or retired military personnel, who typically adhere to ‘national security’ protocols.
This situation leads to a couple of possibilities:
1) The gatekeepers believe that the documentary’s content lacks the substance needed to engage those outside of the UFO community. In this view, the buzz surrounding it may simply be exaggerated hype.
2) The documentary might have received approval from the gatekeepers, meaning only information that they deem appropriate for public consumption will be included. We’ll have to wait and see if it makes any real impact.
Your post raises some intriguing points regarding the motivations behind allowing a documentary like “Age of Disclosure” to be produced, particularly in relation to the so-called “Deep State” or gatekeepers. There are indeed a few possibilities to consider:
Controlled Disclosure: There’s a theory that suggests the release of certain information is orchestrated in a way that allows the authorities to maintain control over the narrative. By allowing the documentary to air, they could be strategically guiding public perception. This might mean that while it appears to be a groundbreaking revelation, it could be carefully curated to align with an accepted, non-threatening version of events.
Cultural Shift: Another possibility is that the gatekeepers are aware of a shift in public sentiment. As interest in UFOs and related phenomena increases, they might see value in addressing the topic rather than suppressing it outright. By permitting the release of the documentary, they can engage with the public’s curiosity and perhaps diffuse any potential backlash from an increasingly skeptical populace.
Testing the Waters: The documentary might serve as a litmus test. If there is significant public interest or outcry, it could inform decision-making on how much more information can be disclosed in the future. It’s a way to measure the appetite for such revelations without fully committing to a broad unveiling of classified material.
In sum, while the documentary could indeed turn out to be a damp squib, it could also represent a more significant shift in how these topics are approached at the institutional level. Whether it will capture the attention of non-UFO enthusiasts or lead to real change remains to be seen, but it’s certainly a fascinating development in the ongoing conversation around these topics.