Age of Disclosure

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Reports of identified flying optic, unidentified verial phonomen today difut
weapons being tested by our own or foreign government. The
Americans people are becoming most interested and for many instances.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Very alarmed by the UFO stories.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
So why do you suppose that all of this has
been kept from the world exploring our past, our future,
and the mysteries of our universe? Where Why can't you
explain that everybody in uthology is screaming or disclosure?

Speaker 3 (00:32):
The future is now.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
This is Micah.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Hanks from the high mountains of Appalachia in a bunker
below ground. Welcome, one and all. It is the Micah
Hanks Program. Glad as always to be getting into gear
and going in pursuit of the anomalist in our existence,
in this ever intriguing age in which we exist, and
of course coming to you via podcasting apps everywhere. Welcome,

(00:57):
Welcome one and all. I hope you all had a
wonderful weekend. And in fact, I heard from many folks
over the weekend, and if I didn't know any better,
I would have to imagine that there had been some
kind of big news, something percolating involving UAP and what
might have tipped me off had been all of the
media coverage, essentially all of the major mainstream media news

(01:19):
outlets discussing this new documentary film, The Age of Disclosure. Yes, indeed,
this made quite a splash, and when I saw the
New York Times article about this late last week, I
actually sent a quick message over to my good friend
Jay Stratton to congratulate him, because of course he was
featured prominently in that article as well as the documentary

(01:41):
in question. We're going to get into all that by
popular demand a bit later, although initially, after having actually
seen the news and of course watching the documentary myself,
I had wondered what or how or if I should
really wade into this winning on this because as always,

(02:02):
the UAP situation is an ever dynamic, ever evolving American controversy,
and yes, of course it goes well beyond US borders.
But you can't deny despite the worldliness of the UAP issue,
and I know that having traveled to other countries and
having spoken with lawmakers in those countries about the UAP

(02:23):
issue and how it relates to their country and to
the constituents that they represent in those countries. Yes, of
course I know all too well, how big this issue is,
and yet there is inherently an American aspect to it,
a focus on the American disclosure process, and that I
feel is obviously also reflected in this new film. And

(02:45):
so after much contemplation, a lot of pondering on my
own part, a lot of personal reflections about what is
conveyed in the film, what friends of mine who appear
in it have had to say on the other side
of the coin, of course, what my job as a
journalist is when it comes to talking about this subject,
as a long time researcher who has studied it, what

(03:07):
my perspectives are and how my knowledge of the history
might apply, and really, more broadly, not even debating whether
or not UAP exists. I'll leave it up to the
advocates and the skeptics. They all seem to have had
their minds made up for quite some time after all,
but no for me. More important really at the heart
of all this is to try and offer a saye

(03:30):
a fear, an unbiased but also a comprehensive analysis of
the situation. What the film says, how the media has
responded some of the claims that have been made both
in the film and in association with it, but then
more broadly in the cultural sense, how this is impacting
the ongoing dialogue about UAP. That's a tall order, I realize,

(03:53):
but I'm going to wade into the fray this week
and do my best to try and offer an original,
a unique, and also a fair and balanced perspective on
all of the aforementioned. So we will get to that
here in mere moments. First, there is quite a bit
of breaking news and the ongoing developments involving drones in Europe.

(04:15):
Case in point, we have ABC News here reporting on
the Dutch military which recently opened fire at drones that
appeared over Vocal Air Base in the east of the country.
As the outlet reports, there was no wreckage recovered in
this instance. According to statements provided by the Ministry of Defense.
Quoting from the article here, they say that security staff
at the base reported the drones between seven pm and

(04:37):
nine pm on Friday, prompting the air force to fire
ground based weapons to take them down. That again, also
according to the Ministry's statement, the drones left the area
and were not recovered in recent weeks, as we've reported
here on the podcast. Of course, there are numerous similar
incidents that have been reported in Europe and notably over
NATO member countries. Some of course, have looked at these

(05:00):
reports and said more of the same, as if, of
course drones don't exist, people just seeing planets in conventional aircraft,
no actual drone sightings, just mass hallucinations and moral panics. Right, Well,
don't tell that to Romanian officials, who, along with Germans,
scrambled NATO fighter jets earlier today near Romania's border with

(05:23):
Ukraine to respond to a drone incursion that they say
penetrated deeper than ever into Romanian airspace. This in what
Bucharest is called a Russian provocation. Reut's reporting here that
Defense Minister ion At Mulsteno said that the NATO pilots
came close to shooting down a drone which had repeatedly
entered the Alliance member country's airspace, but had held off

(05:46):
over concern about causing damage on the ground. Now listen
to this importantly. Quote drone fragments without an explosive charge
were later found on Romanian territory. Unquote, we are dealing
with a new Russian provocation against Romania. A drone which
the Romanian army and German eurofighters have tried to shoot

(06:07):
down My assumption is that the pilots analyzed the potential
collateral damage and chose not to engage. So, in essence,
for those who have continued to argue there are no drones,
and that all these officials who claimed that sightings have
occurred in their airspace are simply mistaken or they are
basing their judgment on hearsay which stems from reports from

(06:28):
other individuals, and they in fact were also mistaken. As
for those who have continued to maintain there are no drones.
On account of such possibilities, how do we account for
Russian drone sidings? Had also drone fragments that were recovered
in Romanian territory, and that very fact also importantly being
one of the factors that had probably led to them

(06:51):
taking no further action in terms of trying to shoot
these things down for fear of collateral damage. Quote they
chose not to engage sounds an awful lot to me, like,
not only are there confirmed drone sightings over some of
these European nations, but many officials are concerned because they
directly attribute this activity to Russia. This is essentially what

(07:14):
I've been saying now for weeks. Obviously they are going
to be misidentifications. But you cannot always use the same
broad brush strokes when it comes to dealing with the
sightings of these alleged drones. Just because a couple of
them can be shown to have been celestial objects, conventional aircraft, balloons, birds, whatever, else,

(07:35):
that doesn't mean that everybody who says, hey, I saw
a drone hovering over a military sight, or over an airport,
or wherever else they may have been seen, not all
of those people are going to be mistaken or out
of their minds or crazy or wide eyed believers worthy
of course of being compared to those nonsensical advocates for

(07:55):
the existence of flying saucers, Ho ho ho, No, there's
probably a whole lot more this, and again it's fascinating
to me to see those comparisons between the UFO siding
enigma and the ongoing drone sidings. How skeptics increasingly seem
to be making the argument that none of the drone
sidings are actually of drones, as if drones don't exist.

(08:17):
Yet Again, I wouldn't tell that to Romanian officials or
German officials for that matter. Go ahead, and add Dutch
officials to that list as well. They all seem to
be pretty convinced of the things that are being reported
in their airspace. But now coming back over to North
America and heading north of the border to Canada, there
is one individual in Vancouver who's preparing to get rid

(08:40):
of a whole trove of UAP data. Any interested parties
out there might actually even be able to obtain some
of this information. I'm talking about Jeff Schwartz. He's the
owner of East Vancouver's Direct Liquidation and he has what
he calls a shipment. It stands out even among the
eclectic items that passed through his warehouse. Speaking with CTV

(09:05):
News recently, he said, quote, I've been doing this for
forty years. I get all kinds of stuff, anything and
everything that you could possibly think of. For getting something
like this, I would say it's probably in the top one,
if not the top one, in terms of uniqueness of
collections he has obtained. So what exactly is in this collection, Well,

(09:26):
it involves decades of research materials on UFOs, alleged extraterrestrial encounters,
and yes, declassified government documents. This of course all because
it comes from California producer Chris Wyatt, who was known
for a time as Hollywood's de facto UFO producer. Back
in the nineteen nineties, Wyatt made multiple documentaries on UFOs

(09:50):
while also gathering thousands and thousands of pages of documents, testimony, photographs,
and other kinds of data related to his work. In
this data now in the possession of mister Schwartz in Vancouver,
he says, you can see fighter jets chasing some of
the UFOs and some of these images. He says that

(10:10):
there are also documents books, But the centerpiece of the collection,
he says, is, and this is indeed very intriguing, a
yearbook from Roswell Air Force Base in New Mexico, of course,
in nineteen forty seven, the year of the famous alleged
Roswell incident, about which, by the way, we will have
a bit to say later in the program as it

(10:32):
relates to the new age of disclosure documentary. But yes,
back in nineteen forty seven, when that alleged incident took place,
it was known as Roswell Army Airfield because the Air
Force hadn't formally been launched yet at that time. In fact,
I think it happened later the same year, but, as
Schwartz says, the military ordered all the earbooks from nineteen
forty seven to be turned in and destroyed. The reason

(10:54):
why was they knew that the press was going to
come from around the world, and they'd certainly want the
yearbook to be able to go in and start interviewing
all of the military officers who are there. So Wyatt
says he obtained the copy that's part of the collection
from a former officer who insisted on passing it on
before he died. As Whyatt remembers of all this, this
gentleman was on an oxygen tank. He said, I don't

(11:16):
have long to live. This is my prized possession, and
I think you're the guy to own it.

Speaker 3 (11:21):
Well.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
Wyatt says he paid handsomely for the yearbook, and it
expects it will be the most lucrative item in the
auction next month. I'd be surprised, he said, if it's
sold for less than one hundred thousand dollars. That would
probably preclude a lot of UFO researchers out there, the historians,
well like myself, who normally like to get our mits
on something like this. Right now, it is expected that

(11:43):
this collection will go to auction sometime next month. So
who knows, maybe some generous patron of UFOs Studies will
obtain that Roswell yearbook and other things from Wyatt's collection.
Maybe these will be made available to the public. I
don't know, maybe not. I guess I'll say for now,
I'm not going to hold my breath hoping that new
information is going to come to light about that case,

(12:06):
or generally speaking with regard to the UAP subject, because again,
as many former government officials as well as present ones
have said in the documentary The Age of Disclosure, there
is a there there, but we have to keep fighting
for transparency because the kind of information that is trickled
down to us out of the intelligence community over the years. Again,

(12:29):
classified information that officials say that they have been made
privy to has not yet been released to the public,
and it will take a momentous effort before that can happen,
if it ever does. Like I mentioned at the outset,
this is obviously on a lot of people's minds. As
I saw, The Age of Disclosure was probably one of
the top, if not the top selling documentary on Amazon

(12:54):
as of earlier this week, and I've been getting a
lot of messages about it, like this one from one
of our listeners, Ed, who wrote, good morning, Micah, Happy Monday.
I purchased Age of Disclosure first thing Friday, and I've
watched it a few times since. I'm anxious to hear
what you think of the film. I remember you saying
you had an early screening. Actually I did not have

(13:14):
an early screening, just to be clear, I had to
wait to watch it like everybody else did. I simply
know a lot of the people who appear in the film.
But as Ed continues, there are some pretty impressive people
speaking on this subject in the film. It does give
me reason for pause. He adds, there's a lot being
revealed in this film. This will be the topic of
conversation on Thanksgiving for sure, so I will be listening.

(13:37):
Take care and have a great holiday, Ed. And of
course Ed's message there is just one example of many
that came through over the weekend while I was traveling.
And of course, as we have progressed into this exciting
Thanksgiving week, so what are my thoughts on this film? Well, that,
dear listener, is what we are about to dive into.
All the pros, all the cons all the takeaways, all

(13:59):
of the importance of this film, all of the perspectives
and all the new revelations, as well as some of
the critiques and the criticisms. But more fundamentally, why I
think that you can't deny that The Age of Disclosure
is a very important film. It has come out at
a very intriguing time in history. We'll examine all of
this and more when we return here in a moment

(14:19):
on the Micah Hanks Program.

Speaker 3 (14:31):
So when I ask what is ODO? What comes to mind? Well,
ODO is a bit of everything. Odo is a suite
of business management software that some people say is like
fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. But you know,
some people also say O DO is like a magic
beanstock because it grows with your company and is also

(14:52):
magically affordable. But then again, you could look at ODO
in terms of how it's individual software programs are a
lot like building blocks. Yes, I mean, whatever your business
needs manufacturing, accounting, HR programs, you can build a custom
software suite that's perfect for your company. So what is ODO? Well,

(15:12):
I guess ODO is a bit of everything. Odo is
a fertilizer, magic beanstock, building blocks, for business. Yeah, that's it,
which means that ODO is exactly what every business needs.
Learn more and sign up now at odo dot com.
That's Odo dot Com.

Speaker 4 (15:31):
AI agents are everywhere automating tasks and making decisions at
machine speed, but agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent
can do big damage before you even notice. Rubricagent Cloud
is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails,
and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk

(15:55):
accelerate your AI transformation at Rubric dot com. That's our
UVR dot com.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
For decades, the fight over what the US government truly
knows about unidentified anomalous phenomena has unfolded in a peculiar
gray zone somewhere, I would say, between national security secrecy,
official denial, and a steadily growing chorus of insiders insisting

(16:42):
the public has been kept in the dark. The claims
have only intensified in recent years. Former intelligence officials, military aviators,
and even sitting lawmakers alleged that retrieved craft non human
technology to be specific, and even by aolog logical materials
may have been locked behind classification walls for generations. At

(17:07):
the same time, the government's own investigative offices continue to
issue measured statements, reaffirming seemingly that no verifiable evidence has
surfaced yet to prove such extraordinary assertions, while this ongoing
tension between dramatic testimony and the absence of confirmable proof

(17:27):
has created a landscape where every leake's document, every closed
door briefing, or congressional hearing feels like another step in
a long and uneven march toward transparency. Efforts such as
the UAP Disclosure Act and the push for stronger whistleboarer
protections signal a rare bipartisan appetite to force clarity, even

(17:48):
as agencies like the Pentagon's All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office
reiterate that stories of crash retrievals and reverse engineering programs
remain unsubstantiated. With lawmakers, scientists, filmmakers, and citizens all pulling
at different threads, the pursuit of disclosure has become less
a singular effort and more like a sprawling, multi front campaign,

(18:11):
And in the absence of definitive answers, one question really
remains at the center of the storm. How much longer
can these competing narratives coexist before the truth, whatever it
may be finally breaks through. Welcome back. And of course
all of these questions have been on my mind and
the minds of so many of you out there. And

(18:33):
while I was traveling to attend an event over the weekend,
I was getting little glimpses, bits and pieces of the
broader dialogue shared with me in conversations I was having
with people quick glimpses at social media and all the
hot takes that were being shared by so many people
out there, many of them, by the way, extremely out
of the loop and ill informed. But you know how

(18:56):
the social media environment is these days. You have to
have an opinion, and you have to be able to
speak it loudly all the time and fight with people
as much and as often as you can. One more reason,
by the way, that I rarely, if ever do post
on social media, and for similar reasons, really chalk it
all up to human nature. It is right around this

(19:17):
time of the year, with holidays like Thanksgiving, that a
lot of those perennial favorite discussions, yes I'm talking about
politics and religion, they are banned from coming anywhere near
the dinner table. I couldn't help but wonder reading some
of the postings online this weekend whether UAP might also
be added to the ban list for many Thanksgiving holiday celebrations,

(19:41):
And initially, after having purchased and watched The Age of
Disclosure for myself, yes, many people were reaching out asking
if I could hook them up, since, of course they
were sure that I'd gotten access to early viewings or
links to where they could watch the film for free
full disclosure. I was provided no such link, nor did
I I ask for one. I purchased a copy, didn't

(20:02):
rent it, But yes, I purchased a copy of my
own so I would have that to go back and
refer to going forward. And after watching it initially, I
kind of was concerned about what I could possibly add
to this discussion after all of the response we have
seen in recent days. Again, I already mentioned seeing the
article in the New York Times featuring my pal Jay

(20:24):
Stratton and Dan Ferris sitting there with lawmakers on Capitol
Hill who were provided a private showing of the film.
That article, of course by Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal,
who have been contributors to the debrief my publication in
the past. But Jay told me that morning that later
that same day he would be appearing on Sean Hannity's
program again with filmmaker Dan Farrah. Later that same day,

(20:46):
David Grush also appeared on Fox News. I also heard
lou Elizondo and Chris Mellen both appeared on Chris Cuomo's
show on News Nation. My point being, there was already
a lot of coverage about this, a lot of advocates
and a lot of skeptics chiming in on social media.
So what more really needs to be said about a
film like this? And then it dawned on me that

(21:07):
really is opposed to trying to analyze the film and
either say this is the most important film that's ever
been made, or like the skeptics have been doing, trying
to say it's all the same stuff we've all been
seeing now for years. Maybe I thought, what is missing
here is an analysis not only of the presentation itself,
but also of the media responses, social media reactions, critical commentaries,

(21:32):
and the overall impact that this film has had. But importantly,
all of this also coming from an individual myself who
knows many of those people who appeared in the film.
It also comes from a perspective where I have certain
background information that may be useful I think, and it's
fair to say this, it may be useful in terms

(21:52):
of providing some context for what the film and those
who appear in it have to say. And so now,
in the midst of the great males that has ensued
since the film came out, That's what I'm going to
try and do. I'm going to try and provide some
perspectives that you haven't heard elsewhere, to try and be
truly fair and balanced, not to go in like a
disclosure bro myself, as some would call them, or to

(22:16):
be one of those skeptics who simply says nothing to
see here that we haven't already seen, and never at
any time is anything we've seen amounted to evidence we
are still waiting now. I think again, between those two
extreme perspectives of belief in skepticism, there are indeed some
important takeaways. So to begin, my main takeaway is simply this.

(22:38):
I would say that The Age of Disclosure is a
well made documentary, even some of its critics concede that point,
and it is about the ongoing discussion involving unidentified anomalous phenomena. Yes,
it features present and former government officials and elected representatives
who all discuss the UAP issue just like I often do.
They discuss its significance to US nationals security. They discuss

(23:01):
questions about truth and transparency related to this issue. The
film is by no means flawless, I will say, and
the arguments that it presents at times left me with
some mixed feelings about some of the information that was
being conveyed. And yet still I think that it is
an important film for a number of reasons, and further,

(23:22):
I would go so far as to say it's potentially
one of the most important films about this subject. Despite
having a few issues, I think it's very important. I
highly recommend that people, especially those who haven't really gone
all in on the UAP issue yet, if you're still
kind of in the middle and wondering what this all means,
do not hesitate. You definitely want to watch this film.

(23:45):
I'll also observe that responses to the film have well
essentially been predictable. Skeptics, for the most part, have all
complained that there is still no evidence offered in the
film for the fundamental claims it makes. Meanwhile, on the
other end of the spectrum, believers have mostly presented it
as the most important film on the subject ever made.
Now again, I would actually agree in some regards that

(24:08):
the film is one of the most important that's ever
been made, but probably for different reasons than those advocates
who accept it face value already that there is a
UAP phenomenon. For my own part, I think that there's
evidence that definitely suggests that there is a reality behind
the phenomenon. I will elect the skeptics also concede that

(24:28):
we need more evidence before we can conclude the origins
of or nature of the phenomenon, and so that I
share with the skeptics. Again, I put myself more in
the middle. I can see the merit of both arguments,
but because of that, I also think it's important to
present for you the listener, the agnostic perspective, and that

(24:49):
is essentially this the age of disclosure. To me, of course,
presents some significant information and is a value, if for
nothing else, due to the unquestionable credibility of many of
the present and former US officials who appear in the film, who,
of course, let's keep in mind, are speaking on the record.
Never before have I seen a film with so many

(25:11):
of these officials all in one place speaking on the record.
Like this about this subject that in itself should be
agreed upon as a major development. However, some of the
criticisms based on the lack of supporting evidence, like I said,
should be acknowledged many of them are largely justified. But
even despite that concession, I still maintain that the nature

(25:33):
of the film's discussion, particularly with relation to US classified intelligence,
would strongly suggest and maybe even in some cases directly
convey that officials in the film seem to be speaking
with knowledge of classified information that they've been made privy to,
but which has not yet been made publicly accessible and
for all we know, may never be. In short, yes,

(25:56):
there are some problems with the film. Yes, the film
is significant, but reading between the lines, a lot of
people seem to overlook the fact that many of these
officials are speaking very definitively as though they are extremely
convinced about the UAP reality, and that based on things
they experienced while working in government. Again, based on my
own personal reflections and those based on conversations with some

(26:21):
of the same individuals appearing in the film, I can't
help but think that their opinions on the topic, as
they express on camera in the age of disclosure are
based on information they've been made privy to that you
or I most of us have not been able to see.
In fact, I know that to be true, and so
while acknowledging some of the skeptical critiques, I do fear

(26:42):
that many have overlooked the fact that, hey, you know what,
most of us here in the civilian sector haven't seen
all the stuff that James Clapper or Marco Rubio or
Senator Kirsten Jillibrand or Mike Crowns or Chuck Schumer or
whomever else have seen in their line of work with
the requisite classifications they hold. If you or I were

(27:03):
made privy to that information, would we speak about this
subject more like we see those officials doing in this film,
And yes, as skeptics have pointed out, like we've been
hearing them do now for many years. Sure, from the
perspective of those of us in the civilian sector, nothing
in the film is really new, per se. But I
would argue that the way it's presented, and the way

(27:25):
that the officials are talking about it, and furthermore, the
collection of them all in one presentation as this film offers,
that is significant, But that also brings us to a
rather intriguing development for me, especially while looking at the
way that people are reacting to this film, because intriguingly,
there have been some who I really would identify as

(27:46):
being more on the skeptical side of the argument, and
they appear to be ramping up conspiracy theories about this
film and what its possible secret purpose might be. One
reason I'm so intrigued by that is because I'm a
person who philosophically believes that you shouldn't appeal to conspiracy
theory in order to make your argument. That doesn't, in

(28:06):
my opinion's strengthen the argument. And yet I've seen a
lot of people who have been very critical of the film,
questioning its possible role as propaganda to help drive up
concerns over advancements by Russia or China, or maybe even
hypothetical false flag operations involving fake alien invasions. For those skeptics,

(28:27):
that seems more likely than the alternative, which of course,
is the seemingly unlikely proposition that well, there is a
UAP reality, we really don't know where these things are from.
For all we know, some might actually be from outer space,
and these officials seem to have some knowledge that supports
their conclusion that that's what's really going on. I'm sure

(28:48):
I understand that sounds like science fiction. It seems very unlikely,
But to try and present a counter argument that is
itself a conspiracy theory isn't helpful in trying to get
around the problems with the film that they may have right. Furthermore,
some of the conspiracies I was describing there are also
based on what I view as faulty logic, because it

(29:09):
would seem that linking US national security concerns to claims
involving something so extraordinary as alien threats would be something
that intelligence officials within the US Deep State would find
to be very risky, especially if their real objective was
simply to bring attention to potential foreign threats, like concerns

(29:30):
over advancements by Russia or China. If you're really concerned
about what known, real life enemies of the United States
might be doing, doesn't it make more sense to try
and sell the public or lawmakers or whomever else that
the propaganda is allegedly targeting on the idea that Russia
or China have those weapons, rather than trying to link

(29:50):
those concerns to alien theories that not everybody is going
to necessarily believe in. So yes, I do find it
a little odd these sort of skep conspiracy theories, I'll
call them, and although they are not by any means impossible,
I find them to be unlikely, and often they employ
fairly faulty logic. But coming over to the other side,

(30:10):
there's also a lot of UFO lore that appears to
prevail in this film. References to things like the famous
Holoman Air Force Base UFO landing, the Roswell incident, claims
about George hw Bush's alleged knowledge of UFOs, and similar
things that to me are either rooted in popular UFO
lore or which to me simply sound exaggerated or otherwise questionable.

(30:33):
That's not surprising to me, because inherently elements within a
film like this are going to probably be contradictory at times,
and I do think that some of the ones in
this film are. They're going to be minor conflicting perspectives
expressed by various speakers, or, in the case of the
Age of Disclosure, more often apparent contradictions or conflicts that
I noted, at least between narratives as they appear in

(30:54):
the film, versus public narratives that either already have emerged
about aspects of the story presented in the film, or
in my opinion again that will probably emerge in the
future as a result of further commentary, reporting or revelations
about the topic. Had also individuals involved with it. But fundamentally,
I feel that the core message in essence that there

(31:14):
appears to be a reality to UAP reports, even if
there are conflicting opinions about what their origins are or
what UAP represent, the idea that there appears to be
a reality to the phenomenon remains fundamentally true, and that,
to me is the core message presented in the film.
That reality, and of course the fact that many US
officials believe that they have seen evidence that supports that conclusion. Now,

(31:38):
before we go to the break, there is one more
point I do want to emphasize, and I've already alluded
to this throughout this program. That is the fact that
it's publicly known I am friends with Jay Stratton, the
former director of the UAP Task Force who appears in
this documentary. He and I first met at a conference
in Huntsville, Alabama, in the spring of twenty twenty two,

(31:58):
I haven't been a long time family friend of him
or anything like that. Despite any conspiracy theories from skeptics
that you may find online. It is true, however, that
as a friend, I support Jay his past working government,
his ongoing role, and working to bring attention to the
UAP issue, although I've never used j as a source
for any reporting that I personally have written on the

(32:20):
UAP subject. Now that's important because this decision has been
intentional on my part, because it's a means of allowing
them to be a think, a bit of healthy separation
between our mutual interests and our shared objectives when it
comes to advancing the dialogue about UAP, contrasted against the
media standards one would expect when it comes to covering

(32:41):
a topic like this. So to be clear, when I
refer to our mutual interests in shared objectives, I mean
what I would view as our advocacy that we both
have for UAP studies primarily as a scientific pursuit I think,
as an aviation safety concern that's a big one, and
also primarily as a national security issue. And I think

(33:02):
that he and I both advocating for that. But he
being a former government official and me primarily working as
a journalist. It's very similar to how a journalist and
a politician might have goals and interests that align with
their shared beliefs or ideology, and they might become friends
on account of those shared interests, but the politician in
that example might never be used as a source or

(33:23):
made a subject of that journalist's reporting. That's the kind
of analogy I would use to describe my friendship with
Jay Stratton, and I consider him a very good friend
and a colleague who I've come to know through my
studies of the UAP topic and also our mutual appreciation
for music and things like that. But I also don't
feel that our mutual respect and friendship prevents me from

(33:43):
being an objective observer and having an objective opinion about
this subject, or importantly, this documentary film in which he appears.
To the contrary, I would say, I feel that personally
knowing Jay and others featured in the film helps me
to have a bit of a grounding about the subject
that to a degree provides me with insights into the

(34:03):
background and the recent history that hopefully can help to
offer some context for what the film conveys. It's one
of the reasons why I'm concerned about what I characterize
as skeptical conspiracy theories, because I feel that those people
do not have that context. They are making assumptions, and
they are actually spreading misinformation based on their own inherent

(34:24):
critical attitude toward the topic and their separation from the
subject matter and the people who appear in the film.
So with all that in mind, I hope to try
and address some of the unfounded claims and make counter arguments,
and I also hope to highlight a few areas where
I think UAP advocates are presenting UFO lore as UFO
fact in the film. I want to try and challenge
those claims equally. But moreover, I want to try and

(34:48):
weigh both the pros and the cons in my takeaways
and to truly try to do so fairly, in addition
to also highlighting some of the perspectives others have provided.
So when we come back after this, I want to
take a look at what the media response has been
to the age of disclosure, what other people have had
to say, and then finally we'll also narrow our focus

(35:08):
and look at a few issues that are represented in
the film when we return right here on the Micah
Hanks Program.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
Ever, notice how ads always pop up at the worst moments,
when the killer's identity is about to be revealed.

Speaker 4 (35:29):
During that perfect meditation flow.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
On Amazon Music, we believe in keeping you in the moment.
That's why we've got millions of ad free podcast episodes
so you can stay completely immersed in every story, every reveal,
every breath. Download the Amazon Music app and start listening
to your favorite podcast. Ad free included with Prime.

Speaker 4 (35:54):
Oh hey, welcome to gift rapping. Whoa soey, Seldana, Hey.

Speaker 1 (35:58):
Can you wrap these?

Speaker 4 (35:59):
Please?

Speaker 2 (35:59):
Wow?

Speaker 4 (36:00):
I phone seventeens he sports.

Speaker 5 (36:01):
At Team Mobile you can get four iPhone seventeens on them.

Speaker 6 (36:04):
The news center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
It's the perfect gift for everyone.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
The worst timely got my mama rolled.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Well, it's better than socks.

Speaker 4 (36:12):
So I have to trade in my old phone right.

Speaker 6 (36:15):
No, at T Mobile, there's no trade in is needed
when you switch, gave your old phone or give it
as a gift.

Speaker 1 (36:20):
It's incredible.

Speaker 4 (36:21):
In fact, wrap up my old phone too for my
aunt Rosa.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
Forget that all this will.

Speaker 4 (36:25):
Be jealous sounds like my family drum Oh.

Speaker 1 (36:27):
I got it.

Speaker 5 (36:28):
I'll give it to my Ambuila.

Speaker 4 (36:29):
I'll take reindeer paper.

Speaker 1 (36:30):
With Hey, where are you going? The t mobile?

Speaker 4 (36:33):
The holidays are better at tea mobile. Get four iPhone
seventeen's on us. No trade in needed when you switch
plus four lines for just twenty five bucks.

Speaker 7 (36:41):
A line with twenty four month Figle credits and for
eligible Bardians on Essentels for well qualified customers Botopapless Texas
thes and thirty five dollars device connection you chuck credits
and new palands to do if you pay off earlier, cancel,
contact US finance Agree in Twitter. Fifty six gigabytes eight
hundred thirty dollars required. Visit tam mobile dot com.

Speaker 1 (37:34):
The age of disclosure is disclosure upon us? Or do
we have quite a ways to go? We're going to
try and figure out exactly where we stand with all
this here in a moment. First, as always, I do
want to invite you over to become an ex subscriber

(37:56):
where you can not only support my work, but of
course get a additional content every week. It's a great
way to support the independent efforts of yours. Truly, you
know I do not work for the United States government.
I don't work for a major media outlet. I'm a
person who has been a long time independent researcher, and
I launched my own independent media platform, and as a

(38:18):
result of that, occasionally I also get some pushback, the
likes of which many in this film The Age of
Disclosure describe having received. Often that pushback comes from the
UAP community itself. Often I am deemed to be far
too skeptical by their standards. Meanwhile, many of the skeptics say, yeah,
but he's one of those crazy disclosure bros. He's all in.

(38:41):
I mean, his publication are the ones that broke the
Grush story, So we know he's crazy, right, And I
get it. It's difficult, truly to find a balance in
this dialogue. It's hard at times to come at this
without having those kinds of extremely slanted, biased perspectives, especially
if you get all your news is from social media.

(39:01):
But I endeavor to provide those here and so again,
many of my subscribers write and they thank me for
trying to always do that here on this show. And
of course you can find the subscriber area there at
Micah hanks dot com. Forward slash X. But now getting
back into things, I would characterize the Age of Disclosure
as a bittersweet symphony, not just because of the catchy

(39:23):
nineties song of that title, mind you, but because I
think it's a fair summary description of a film many
of us just watched. I would also say it's a
tour de force that was in many ways very symphonic
in its delivery, both literally and figuratively, and yet in
its own way, it has also added to the controversy,
the lingering confusion, and fundamentally, the ongoing push for transparency

(39:46):
that lingers something the film outlines that I feel less
like an ongoing work in progress and more like the
proverbial uphill battle as I finished watching the film, not
necessarily bad things, by the way. If anything, I think
maybe watching The Age of Disclosure gave me a bit
of a more grounded perspective on where we currently stand

(40:07):
on all this, and it leaves me with more questions
than answers. Questions like is there really a legacy program
and if so, will that information ever see the light
of day at all? Or questions like even if there
is no legacy program, does the government know more than
it's letting on, and if so, will we ever see

(40:27):
that kind of UAP transparency, the kind that the public deserves,
or at least that it desires, and which individuals in
this film are also passionate about fighting for. Are we
really ever going to see these things? I'm not so sure,
but I know that the hope that eventually that will
occur is the very reason why those who appear in
the film did so, and that's also why there has

(40:49):
been such a tremendous media response to this. Of course,
we had Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal's piece in The
New York Times, which, more than being a review of
the film, primarily was a report on the fact that
it was shown to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Many of
those lawmakers, keep in mind, also appear in the film,
so it's not like any of the information the film

(41:10):
contained was something they were unaware of, but for obvious reasons,
they would also want to see this film. Canaan Blumenthal
also addressed issues like the incursions over nuclear sites that
are discussed in the film, the allegations of long term secrecy, yes,
of course, the claims of non human technology or even
biologics or beings associated with that and the political issues too, transparency,

(41:33):
whistleblower protections, executive action, public pressure on Congress, all these
kinds of things. Once again, the New York Times piece
seems to have provided a snapshot of sorts in terms
of where we are, but looking at some of the
commentary that has appeared elsewhere, we have and I think
it's important also to reference the two initial reviews that
came out way back in March of this year, the

(41:55):
first by Daniel Feinberg writing for Variety. He took a
bit of a critic perspective. He said, 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 fifty alien spacecraft, it's impossible

(42:18):
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, he writes, 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 again?
Feinberg's frustration there is palpable, but it's also warranted to

(42:39):
an extent. I can see why people would say, look,
you know, how can you even refute those kinds of claims,
and yet we still don't see any hard evidence apart
from the claims themselves. Not everybody has taken that perspective, however.
Also writing for Indy Weyer back in March was Christian Zilko,
who said that quote, As someone who has never been
persuaded by anything I had ever heard about aliens before

(43:02):
watching the film, I feel qualified to tell you that
the age of disclosure is really, really convincing. The amount
of military officials who share detailed, corroborating stories of alien
encounters and congress people who vouch for the credibility of
their claims make this feel like a documentary with front
page news potential. In fact, over the weekend, I think

(43:23):
it actually became that. Of course, he notes, there is
still the problem of never being able to see this
classified evidence, and each viewer will have to decide how
many generals swearing that they've seen aliens with their own
eyes is enough to convince them. And for some no
amount of adamant testimony will ever be enough, but it
nevertheless feels fair to say that The Age of Disclosure
makes a more serious argument for the idea that we've

(43:45):
had close encounters with the third kind than any documentary
that preceded it. In terms of more recent commentary, Shriy Popot,
writing for The Guardian in just the last few days,
had the following to say, quote in the Age of Disclosure,
it's clear that there's little room for pushback or skepticism,
particularly since there's not a single detractor in the film
to serve as a foil to the plethora of resolute

(44:07):
interviewees and Farah he of course is referring to Dan Farah.
The filmmaker, for his part, doesn't see the need for
those voices to cloud the documentaries through line. Quoting Farah here,
he says, I think when people watch this movie, one
of the realizations will be that the stigma around the
topic is completely illogical and makes no sense and is
not good for humanity. We need the scientific community, and

(44:29):
not only in the United States but in every nation,
accepting the fact that this is a real situation, This
is a valid area of inquiry and that they should
put their brain power towards learning about this and answering
a lot of the big questions that remain. I would
say that generally speaking, The Guardian is pretty fair and balanced,
and in this case this review was as well. But
now coming back over to the other side, I want

(44:49):
to feature a quote from a review written by Jason Colovito,
where he wrote, quote, for all the bluster surrounding Age
of Disclosure the new UFO Disclosure documentary, the most telling
part of the the entire film comes in the first
few minutes, when we plunge into a bunch of storytelling,
valorizing Louella Zondo's now familiar story of leaving the Pentagon
to promote UFO research. In other words, you know from

(45:11):
the very first moments that if this documentary had anything
other than the same old stories we have heard for
nearly a decade, filmmaker Dan Ferrah would have put it first. Instead,
Colovita writes, we get an episode of Ancient Aliens with
better production values, but the same amount of evidence, and indeed,
in most cases, the same supposed evidence that already appeared

(45:31):
on Ancient Aliens. Now, of course, it's no secret for
those who follow all this that mister Colovito is not
a fan of mine particularly, but believe it or not,
I actually do enjoy some of his commentaries, and I
do frequently read his website, despite the fact that from
time to time he does like to focus on things
I say as well. But again, I think he makes
some fear points in his review It's well worth reading.

(45:54):
The Anomalist offered some feedback on his review, however, noting
that Jason makes points about some of the documentaries claims
and scripted elements, but this reviewer, The Anomalist, in other words,
felt Jason's piece overly at hominem. Plus, the film's target
is probably the larger public who for decades generally got
a nothing to see folks from government and mainstream news.

(46:16):
The knowledge level in the subject and personal involvement of
every cast member likely for exceeds and demands, given the
continuing UFO stigma, a much greater level of commitment and
courage on their parts than that of most reviewers. Also
good points there from The Anomalist, and now, in the
time we have left, also want to get a few
perspectives from the clergy. In this case, Father James Krezenski

(46:39):
with the Vatican Observatory, who wrote quote, movies are often
fictional with fictional characters, while documentaries present real people and
life circumstances. After watching this documentary, I didn't feel a
need to question the honesty or realness of those in
the documentary or the events they explain. Yet I did
feel a hesitancy about embracing some of the resume cultural

(47:01):
narratives the documentary built around the whistleblower's experiences. For example, Predictably,
I was not impressed, Father Krazinski says with a mention
of how the Vatican is aware of UAPs accompanied by
less than flattering images of Pope Francis and Saint John
Paul the second. It was a quick statement, he says,
with no supporting data that sparked the question what do

(47:22):
you mean by the Vatican knows about UAPs? The statement
was made, they departed from it, and no further supporting
information was given In a word concerning of course, it's
easy to see why a priest writing for the Vatican
Observatory website would say this, and he goes on to
write does the Vatican have top secret information about UAPs?
Does the Vatican possess the same type of knowledge I

(47:43):
have of UAPs from watching the news, statements from global leaders,
watching this documentary, or simply enjoying science fiction. These two
questions present wildly different types of knowing about UAPs. He
goes on to add, I must admit that this brief
insertion made me question if similar types of broad stroke
statements were being made in regard to politics, science, and

(48:03):
governmental structures. He adds that one's reputation and reliability is
central when presenting extraordinary events and phenomena. It was a moment,
though brief, that didn't give me a high level of
confidence to trust the claims of the documentary. Still, I
also wouldn't blame you if you dismiss my inside as
simply being a Catholic priest sticking up for his home team. Well,

(48:25):
when we come back, I'll offer a slightly different perspective
on what this might entail and how this fits into
the idea of UFO lore. As we wrap up our
discussion about the age of disclosure right here on the
Micah Hanks Program.

Speaker 6 (48:45):
Whether you're solving murders during breakfast, cracking cold cases on
your commute, or playing amateur detective at bedtime. Amazon Music's
got millions of podcast episodes waiting. Just download the Amazon
Music app and start listening to your favorite truth crime podcasts.

Speaker 4 (49:01):
Ad free included with Prime Get festive.

Speaker 5 (49:04):
With Fossil this holiday season. As a proud sponsor of
jingle Ball, Fossil has unforgettable gifts for everyone on your list,
including a limited edition watch collection with Nick Jonas. Shop
the nick list for his favorite hand picked Fossil styles,
plus statement jewelry gift Doble leather goods, and of course
timeless watches from Elegant Raquel for her to Rugged Machine

(49:25):
for him. There's nothing like a Fossil watch out of
personal touch. Customize their gift with free engraving and embossing.
Shake your phone now to shop.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
Could the current administration soon reveal the existence of non
human intelligence to the public? Welcome back?

Speaker 2 (50:09):
You know.

Speaker 1 (50:09):
With the release of the Age of Disclosure, a few
out there are even talking about whether President Trump might
become the disclosure president. Not impossible, but then again, looking
at how the UAPDA or the uap Disclosure Act unfolded,
maybe we still should have some questions about how likely

(50:31):
it is that politicians can just reveal everything that the
government knows. It seems that indeed they have met some
hurdles so far. But as we're concluding this analysis of
the recent documentary film The Age of Disclosure by Dan Farrah,
there were a few things that appear in the film
that I specifically wanted to address, and one of them

(50:51):
actually asked to do with the idea of whether or
not Donald Trump was at one time poised to disclose
the truth about UAP, or some headlines the other day
saying that it was revealed in the film that some
officials in government might have been preparing for that possibility.
But once I watched the film, it became pretty evident
that what they were referring to was a section where
Jay Stratton appears and he's talking about having briefed Secretary

(51:15):
of Treasury at the time, Stephen Mnuchin, who said that
he essentially had to think about what the potential implications
would be if Trump were to announce that there were
evidence of a UAP reality. In other words, Stratton seems
to convey in the documentary that Mnuchin had requested that
briefing because of the possibility, not because of any eminent

(51:37):
revelations expected to be forthcoming. From Donald Trump. So I
think that there was some confusion on part of some
in the media, or maybe they were overblowing or taking
out of context some things that Jay had said. Boy
imagine that never before would I imagine that people would
take things that a government official or a former one
like Jay Stratton would say out of context and mischaracterize

(51:59):
that and presented as though he had said or meant
something else. And we never see that happen, do we.
But in the film there are also some other intriguing
statements that are made, and some which the media has
been fixated on. One involves the fact that James Clapper
at one point references there having been some kind of
effort to try and track and resolve UAP sidings that

(52:23):
were occurring over Area fifty one, and a lot of people,
especially on social media, out there. All the armchair investigators
were quick to point out what Clapper said and note
that this is a huge revelation. This is the first
time we've heard about this. Well, I will correct them
and say it may be the first time you've heard
Clapper specifically discuss that, But readers of my publication the

(52:46):
Debrief may in fact remember having heard something like this
before in the past. In fact, I was very intrigued
when I first heard this, because it first came to
my attention when initially I was approached by Christopher Mellan
with a lengthy essay that he wrote critiquing the first
volume of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office's historical report

(53:07):
on UAP. And in mister Mellon's piece, he wrote, all
quote now, and this is available there at the debrief
dot org, so you can go read for yourself. But
Mellon wrote, a former director of US Air Force Intelligence
informed me than in the nineteen eighties, the Air Force
undertook a classified UAP collection program in the vicinity of

(53:27):
Area fifty one in an attempt to ascertain the origin
of UAP, violating the famous Bases restricted airspace. How come
that program was not uncovered by AERO? How many other
secret US Air Force programs related to UAP were not uncovered?
Where are those UAP reports? And how many others are
there from other locations? Now, naturally, I'm very glad that

(53:50):
there's more attention being brought to this, especially with all
the attention that the Age of disclosure is getting with
all the downloads on Amazon Prime. But again, I just
want to point out, although James Clapper was not quoted
in that article by Chris Mellon at the debrief, it
is extremely obvious that that is who Chris Mellon was
referring to. And now James Clapper has been revealed as

(54:10):
the source of that information first reported by the Debrief.
Once again, imagine that that never happens, right, the debrief
reported at first, and then it gets a lot of
press elsewhere, but again just acknowledging that this information had
been out there although the source had not yet been
previously known. We also have the intriguing claims in the
film that are made by Eric Davis. Now I've met

(54:32):
Eric Davis, I've talked with him in the past. In
the film, Davis discusses, among other things, the discovery of
at least two different races or varieties of beings biological
beings with relation to past crashes and recoveries. Okay, that's interesting.
He also discusses at one point in the film the
alleged recovery of a tic TAC by the Soviets, which

(54:55):
was dismantled, revealing a kind of directed energy weapon. He
also claims in the film, and this is maybe, in
some ways one of the most extraordinary of all the claims.
Doctor Davis claims that he met and spoke with George
Herbert walker Bush, who told him about his own personal
knowledge of alleged UAP incidents, including the famous Hollman Air

(55:16):
Force incident. I guess my question on all these points
for doctor Eric Davis is what were the sources of
this information, except, of course, in the case of it
being George Herbert walker Bush. But that seems itself to
be a fairly tall order. I don't want to call
anybody a liar, but I do have concerns when I
hear these kinds of extremely extraordinary claims coming from an

(55:38):
individual who also claims that they spoke to the President
of the United States, and all these things having to
do with what, again, I would classify as being the
kind of UFO folklore that often confusingly finds its way
into the UFO discussion. Let's talk about some of that
folklore there for a second too. Again. In the film,
we also have Loue Elizondo saying at one point that

(55:59):
at a tip we learned that the UAP event at
the US Army airfield at Roswell in nineteen forty seven
did actually occur. Of course, on this podcast, specifically, when
mister Alizondo's book came out, I addressed where I thought
he got this information about Roswell. In fact, in his
book he explains where he got it. He says it
came from hal put Off. I've also done episodes of

(56:22):
this podcast where I explain what I think, in likelihood
actually happened at Roswell. And there are, in fact actually
documents that support the idea that Roswell had nothing to
do with aliens or a crashed flying saucer. No, it
probably had more to do with a program the US
government was involved with at the time, and a controversial
one called nuclear Engines for propulsion of aircraft. In any case,

(56:46):
having knowledge of those circumstances, and again I would refer
the listener back to past episodes of the podcast where
I discuss what I think happened at Roswell. I do
have some concerns about Lou Alizondo claiming that we learned
that the UAP event at the US Army airfield at
Roswell did indeed actually occur here. I do not agree
with mister Alezando on that point. I know a lot

(57:07):
of other people, including some who appear in the film
there who also probably differ with him on that point.
Mister Alizondo also talks in the film about receiving a
phone call where he was essentially told there are people
in Washington who are discussing possibly trying to have you killed.
You and David Grush. Again, I cannot confirm or deny that.
I'll never call somebody a liar. I think Lou may

(57:30):
be mistaken, as had been hal put off about Roswell.
But again, that seems like an extremely extraordinary claim that
there is a secret cabal in Washington that arranges the
murder of people who come out publicly and talk about
UAP cases. Equally, I think it's fair to ask have
there been similar threats made against people like Dave Fraver,

(57:51):
who claims that he literally went after a tic TAC
and all the other Navy pilots who have come forward
and talked about their personal encounters. Think about all of
the high level officials who have come forward, Jay Stratton,
my dear friend also being one. I haven't heard any
of those people saying that they were contacted and told
a secret cabal was plotting some dastardly conspiracy against them,

(58:13):
and so we're going to want to be very clear.
I am simply saying that sounds like a very extraordinary claim,
and I doubt that there's any way that could ever
be proven. But I have concerns when I hear claims
like that coming from individuals like mister Alesando, who appears
in the documentary. Finally, one other interesting thing that appeared
in the film was the reference to there being a

(58:33):
instance where there were several people. Again, mister Alessando talked
about this. He said that there were several colleagues whom
he knew who had participated in a panel discussion this
during the George W. Bush administration, and this seemed to
be related to the implications of the public disclosure of
the UAP reality well. Intriguingly, that information seems to have

(58:54):
also been provided, probably by some of the sources that
appear in the film, and I guess maybe Alessando is
one of them. Helpful it off probably another because he
discusses it in the film as well. But in Aero's
historical Report Volume one, Arrow officials actually note that quote.
There are two interviewees who said they participated in an
alleged White House tasked UAP study in northern Virginia. They

(59:16):
say it occurred sometime between two thousand and four and
two thousand and seven. The study evaluated the impacts to
society should the United States, Russia, or China disclose that
they had evidence of extraterrestrial beings or craft. One of
the interviewees assumed these governments possessed such evidence. The study
was conducted by approximately twelve participants who evaluated sixty four
different aspects of society, such as religion and financial markets,

(59:39):
which could be impacted by such a disclosure. A few
pages later in euro's report, they add quote an organization
in northern Virginia did conduct a study between two thousand
and four and two thousand and seven on the societal
effects should the United States or other world governments disclose
that they have evidence of extraterrestrial life. Interviewees believed the
White House had sponsored it. Arrow confirmed through two former

(01:00:01):
White House senior officials that the White House did not
request it, nor were they aware of any such study.
So Arrow officials seem to believe that they know what
that was all about, and it didn't have to do
with the White House. Problem, of course with Arrow coming
back over to the other side. Now, remember we've got
to be fair and balanced. Arrow provides no kind of
source citation. I mean they do, but you go to

(01:00:23):
the appendix and you read that and it simply says
Arrow case study or case report. So they don't have
any kind of data we can follow up on. Now,
if I had to guess, my personal suspicion is that
in all likelihood this had something to do with what's
known as the Arlington Institute. And for UAP sleuths out there,
if you want to try and dig up some additional details,
if you know where to look, there is data about this.

(01:00:46):
But I'm not going to tell you anything more for
right now about why I suspect this involved the Arlington Institute,
at least not for right now. But in conclusion, the
public and the critical response is to the age of
disclosurebviously span a pretty broad spectrum. I think we can
say that fairly. Many are cautiously neutral in their reporting

(01:01:07):
about it in the media. Some have endorsed it strongly, obviously,
many have expressed deep skepticism, and I think that that
really speaks not just to the nature of the documentary, itself,
but really more broadly the UAP discussion. It is extremely polarizing.
It's a great controversy that really kind of brings together
edges from politics and media and science, and yes, of

(01:01:29):
course the long running UFO discourse. We've got the outlets
like The New York Times that took this as not
entertainment but really more as a political event. They note
the bipartisan nature of the congressional members who appeared in
the film and also who attended that screening there in
Washington last week. Some of the perspective offered by reviewers

(01:01:51):
like Christian Zilco call the film very persuasive, saying it's
the most serious argument for non human encounters ever presented
in a documentary. Contrast to that, more skeptical critics like
Daniel Feinberg and Jason Colovido have essentially said, this film
is really saying all the same things we've already heard.
It doesn't provide any testimony with good evidence, it doesn't

(01:02:11):
have any dissenting voices. It really comes across a lot
more like propaganda, and again, as some have gone so
far as to argue, it could be fear based propaganda
that is intending to do what to try and ramp
up funding for government contractors for secret defense programs by
scaring us into worrying that there may be threats in
our skies, or, as some others have suggested, like Stephen

(01:02:34):
green Street, video editor for The New York Post, could
this all be a bunch of government officials attempting to
try and scare us into thinking that an alien invasion
is on the way. Again, I would class that as
a conspiracy theory. But then we also have those like
father James Krazinski with the Vatican Observatory saying, you know,
there should be cautious openness, but maybe we should be

(01:02:54):
concerned about some of the unsubstantiated narrative leaps that some
of those appearing in the documentary make, specifically statements that
were made about the Vatican and information it has about UAP.
But then giving the last word to filmmaker Dan Ferah himself,
as he recently told Entertainment Weekly, I really hope that
the release of this documentary leads to the US government
finally revealing everything it legally can to the American public

(01:03:18):
regarding UAP and non human intelligent life. For too long,
the public has blatantly been lied to, kept in the dark,
and misled with a really sophisticated disinformation campaign. And I
think we're now at a tipping point where not only
does the public deserve to know the truth, but it's
really essential, Parah says, because the stakes have never been higher,

(01:03:38):
and the stakes impact not only everyone in the United States,
but everyone in the world. So, in summary, supporters call
it a landmark film, one that features credible insiders, a
corrective maybe two decades of secrecy, a catalyst even for
political and scientific engagement. The skeptics would still argue, as
many have, that it's unverifiable to testimony packaged as a

(01:04:01):
big revelation, but it's really a narrative driven film that
doesn't have the kind of balance a good documentary should.
Then there are the mainstream outlets, which generally are trying
to be more balanced, and they may acknowledge it's a
politically strategic film, but it's also a sign of rising
bipartisan attention being put toward UAPs, and that fundamentally a
push for transparency and legislation amid ongoing government denials is

(01:04:26):
important and it should be happening overall. To me, the
collective response is that the Age of disclosure can be
seen as a significant cultural and political event, even if
it remains deeply divisive, or perhaps no more divisive than
the broader UAP debate itself. Really, maybe we need a

(01:04:49):
little controversy right about now to shake things up. I
think this film has done that, and I'd always of
course invite your thoughts and opinions until next time. Though
that wraps things is up for now. You guys, take
care and as always, stay strange out there.