Disclosure has begun

[SteamyAmerican]

Well, wasn't it because credible people have been coming forward with their experiences for a long time now but recently a larger number are coming forward whom are very credible as well?

People like Bob Lazar were easy to threaten, control and smear, until he wasn't, until he went on the news and had UFO/UAP researchers and news media back him up. Military personnel were also easy to threaten, intimidate and/or silence.

Let's not forget those researchers who work tirelessly to find the truth.

"George Knapp attempted to verify Bob Lazar's story through several investigative methods:

1. Corroborating Employment and Education: After initial difficulties confirming Lazar's claims with institutions like Los Alamos National Laboratory and Caltech, Knapp reportedly found evidence placing Lazar at Los Alamos. This included Lazar's name in a 1982 lab phone directory and a feature in a Los Alamos newspaper that identified him as a "physicist" at the lab, showcasing his homemade jet car. 
   
2. Polygraph Testing: Knapp arranged for Lazar to undergo multiple polygraph tests with different examiners. The results were mixed and ultimately inconclusive, with some tests suggesting truthfulness and others not. The process was marked by alleged government intimidation, including a phone call to one examiner's employer and a reported burglary at the examiner's home. 
   
3. Assessing Technical Knowledge: Knapp noted that Lazar possessed specific, accurate knowledge about the remote S-4 facility near Area 51, including its location and security procedures, which was not publicly known at the time. Lazar's early description of the properties of Element 115, later synthesized as Moscovium, is also cited by Knapp as a significant point of corroboration. 
   
4. Observing Anomalous Activity: Knapp reported observing security personnel visiting Lazar's home and believed he himself was under government surveillance after reporting on the story, which he interpreted as indirect evidence of Lazar's connection to a sensitive government program." (LLM)
   

Okay. That’s fair. I’ll play.

These individuals, among many others (credible or not), existed as did their claims well before this administration.

So what exactly is different about right now. May 2026. Why do we need to know this life-changing, reality-altering, earth-shattering info now?

What’s different? The skeptic in me feels this is an affront and a distraction.

Not at all in the least of trying to “make right” by these people or even history.

Not in the least.

So why now? And why just the U.S. I mean the cynic in me says it’s great PR for a movie that has similar elements coming out. But Spielberg doesn’t exactly control the WH either.

[quintessentone]

Okay. That’s fair. I’ll play.

These individuals, among many others (credible or not), existed as did their claims well before this administration.

So what exactly is different about right now. May 2026. Why do we need to know this life-changing, reality-altering, earth-shattering info now?

What’s different? The skeptic in me feels this is an affront and a distraction.

Not at all in the least of trying to “make right” by these people or even history.

Not in the least.

So why now? And why just the U.S. I mean the cynic in me says it’s great PR for a movie that has similar elements coming out. But Spielberg doesn’t exactly control the WH either.

I would link it to UAP videos being leaked and the Pentagon sitting on their hands, doing and saying nothing for so long. Haven't the people there been asking for transparency?

----

"Yes, several prominent UAP videos were initially leaks before being officially acknowledged or released by the Pentagon. 

• The 2019 footage of triangular and spherical objects (captured near the USS Russell and USS Omaha) was leaked to documentary filmmaker Jeremy Corbell and journalist George Knapp, who released it online in 2020.  The Pentagon later confirmed in 2021 that the footage was authentic and taken by Navy personnel, though it did not initially label the objects as UAPs. 
  
• The famous 2004–2015 videos (FLIR, GIMBAL, GOFAST) were also leaked to the press by former Pentagon official Christopher Mellon in 2017.  The Pentagon officially released these three videos in 2020. 
  
• A recent May 2026 release under the Trump administration’s PURSUE directive included declassified files and videos, but this was an official government disclosure rather than a leak, following pressure from Congress." (LLM)
  

[Knows]

My 2 cents. I'm not aware of any ground breaking new evidence that has been released. UFO footage has been around forever. Them admitting to investigating UFO's is a non event. 

If they said something like. "We are working with aliens and have their technology", maybe I would care.     

But at least Trump has lifted a finger and attempted to do something.

[Astyanax]

That was a very civilised reply. Thank you very much. 
 

A new way of looking at commonly available evidence may be enough to support an "extraordinary claim".
For example, was the claim that an apple attracts the Earth in the same way the Earth attracts the apple extraordinary? The evidence supporting that claim was available for anyone to see, the only thing that was lacking was someone to look at it in an inquisitive way and really think about it.

There is nothing extraordinary about gravity. It is our common experience and has been since the day we were born. The conclusion that the Earth is attracted by an apple is readily inferred from the easily verified observation that it is attracted to another massive body, the Sun. It was also experimentally proven in the laboratory by Cavendish in 1798. 
 

People who believe in things for which there is no solid evidence... Clearly you are one such person.

You're wrong, I'm not like that.

Fair enough. But if you’re not like that, what is your beef with the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? It’s practically self-evident. You may have other reasons for disliking Sagan, but that was the one which moved you to reply. 

You say an extraordinary claim may be proved by ordinary evidence. Perhaps you could supply a proper example. I’ve been racking my brains – but extraordinary claims that have later been proven, such as the germ theory of disease or the identification of mosquitoes as the transmitters or malaria, have required some pretty extraordinary research work in order to prove them. 
 

One thing I disagree with you is in the hostile part, not only is hostility not needed, it's usually easier to make other people see they are either wrong or in need of finding supporting evidence if you talk to them from an understanding...

I’m afraid you have lost sight of the stated objective of the site, which is not to make people feel good or to persuade them you are right, but to establish the truth of the claims they present here. ATS failed ever to do this and Deny Ignorance is no better. Nor, in their very nature, could these sites be any different. There are plenty of citizen-science initiatives in the world, and some of them have been quite successful. They work very differently from ATS and DI.

If our motive is to establish the truth, scepticism towards all claims is warranted, and the evidence for all claims must be examined with the earnest intention of proving it false. That is what I mean by ‘hostile scrutiny’. Coddling people’s feelings will not bring us to the truth.
 

It's a playground for those that do not show supporting evidence, which is not the same thing as being fantasists.

You’re right. It isn’t necessarily the same. They might be doing it in order to profit from the claim in some way, quite probably by extracting money from you. They might be doing it in order to influence your political, religious, anthropological or sociological views, etc. They may be doing it out of sheer hate. Being a fantasist is a relatively benign motive for making unsupported claims, which is why I chose it. I would rather believe that, in general, the members of ATS are fantasists rather than propagandists or confidence tricksters. I trust this clarifies the matter.
 

I haven't as much time as I had some years ago, so it's hard for me to look for evidence that opposes some of the claims. Also, it looks like most claims these days are just made through someone else's videos, and I hate videos, as they are made to use our time the way the video maker wanted to, not how we want.

Richard Dawkins (I expect you like him no better than Sagan) often says that it’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. One way in which that happens is to give credence enough to every unsupported claim that you drive yourself mad looking to verify them. A sensible person performs a kind of intellectual triage, rejecting or ignoring far-fetched ideas until the weight of argument or evidence prompts a change of mind.
 

And yes, I am emotionally equipped to reconsider any of my opinions.

You would be an extraordinary person indeed if you were. Though, of course, we all think we are.

[Astyanax]

Just because we are the only planet to house life that we are aware of, doesn’t mean that this is the factual case at all actually.

Right. Earlier it sounded as if you were saying the opposite. To clarify my own reply, the probability that life exists in the Universe is 1. Subtract life on Earth from life in the universe and the probability at once becomes much lower, but certainly nonzero. I think we agree that extraterrestrial life exists. The question is whether it’s visiting us from outer space. And the rational probability of that, even if the Universe is full of intelligent life, is minuscule.

[Astyanax]

To me personally, I find it interesting that there is a push just now. After centuries of saying it ain’t so. Forever authority has been trying to keep a lid on this.

So “Que Paso?” Like why is that? 

What’s changed?

The internet came along and afforded minority opinions a global platform.

People discovered that there was money to be made from aliens.

Politicians discovered a new issue to rally voters with.

Thank the internet.

[quintessentone]

So why now? And why just the U.S. I mean the cynic in me says it’s great PR for a movie that has similar elements coming out. But Spielberg doesn’t exactly control the WH either.

Some other thoughts on 'why now?' might be because of that Chinese balloon fiasco and the New Jersey drone panic. Is it as simple as people there demanding transparency about just how secure they are in their beds and the extend that your country really is secure?

----

"New Jersey is poised to establish the nation’s first state-funded UAP research center, following the signing of legislation by Governor Phil Murphy in early 2026.  The law appropriates $3.5 million annually, with $2.5 million designated for university grants to create the Center for the Study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and $1 million allocated for an Air Traffic Controller loan forgiveness program. 
This initiative aims to address systemic issues highlighted by the late 2024 drone panic, where thousands of sightings were reported across the state.  While federal agencies initially attributed many incidents to mistaken identity or authorized drones, the new state-level framework seeks to provide a scientifically rigorous, transparent infrastructure for collecting and analyzing UAP data without the stigma or classification barriers often found in federal systems. " (LLM)

[ArMaP]

Okay. That’s fair. I’ll play.

These individuals, among many others (credible or not), existed as did their claims well before this administration.

So what exactly is different about right now. May 2026. Why do we need to know this life-changing, reality-altering, earth-shattering info now?

Hardly life-changing, reality-altering or earth-shattering, this looks like something they could "disclose" to keep people talking about it, as if some people want to make some movie(s) or write some book(s) about it.

So why now? And why just the U.S. I mean the cynic in me says it’s great PR for a movie that has similar elements coming out. But Spielberg doesn’t exactly control the WH either.

But someone close (or inside) the current administration may have some economic interest in the movie.

[andy06shake]

So why now? And why just the U.S. I mean the cynic in me says it’s great PR for a movie that has similar elements coming out. But Spielberg doesn’t exactly control the WH either.

I'll take misdirection, obstificating, and the Epstein files, for 10 points, please, Bob... 

[ArMaP]

That was a very civilised reply. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.
 

There is nothing extraordinary about gravity.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that for a common person at the time, the claim (that's what we were talking about, claims, not facts) that the apple attracts the Earth is extraordinary.
 

Fair enough. But if you’re not like that, what is your beef with the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? It’s practically self-evident. You may have other reasons for disliking Sagan, but that was the one which moved you to reply. 

That's not why I dislike Sagan. I know it's silly but I have a tendency to dislike people that are popular, as I feel that I am being forced to like them, and when I feel forced to something I apply an equal force in the opposite direction.

What I think (and have been trying to explain) is that we don't know what kind of evidence explains any claim, so we cannot say that it has to be extraordinary just because the claim is.
It's possible that it needs extraordinary evidence, but it's also possible it doesn't.

You say an extraordinary claim may be proved by ordinary evidence. Perhaps you could supply a proper example. I’ve been racking my brains – but extraordinary claims that have later been proven, such as the germ theory of disease or the identification of mosquitoes as the transmitters or malaria, have required some pretty extraordinary research work in order to prove them. 

I don't see research as evidence, I see evidence as a result of research.
Sometimes you take a long time to solve a problem just to find that the solution was very simple but you weren't thinking in that direction (I hope that makes sense, sometimes converting my thoughts from Portuguese to English words is not easy).

I’m afraid you have lost sight of the stated objective of the site, which is not to make people feel good or to persuade them you are right, but to establish the truth of the claims they present here. ATS failed ever to do this and Deny Ignorance is no better. Nor, in their very nature, could these sites be any different. There are plenty of citizen-science initiatives in the world, and some of them have been quite successful. They work very differently from ATS and DI.

I would love for people that accept things without any real supporting evidence (just interpretation of what they saw is not enough for me, although I consider it part of the body of evidence) to change the way they think, but not to accept that I'm right (I may be wrong too, it's easier to be wrong than to be right) but to accept that they may be wrong. Accepting the possibility of being wrong is a great way of getting close to the real truth, as truth doesn't care about what we think or feel, it is what it is.

And although this is not a place for people to feel good, I don't see why it should be a place where they feel bad or persecuted. Many people that share fringe ideas have been scorned and made fun of just because of their ideas, so I think this (and ATS, and all other forums like this) place should be a place where everybody feels good sharing their ideas, regardless of being mainstream or not.

If our motive is to establish the truth, scepticism towards all claims is warranted, and the evidence for all claims must be examined with the earnest intention of proving it false. That is what I mean by ‘hostile scrutiny’. Coddling people’s feelings will not bring us to the truth.

You never know.
People will feel more open to accept other opinions if they do not feel attacked because of their own opinions. You may not be attacking them, but they will react to their feelings, not your intentions.
 

Richard Dawkins (I expect you like him no better than Sagan) often says that it’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

I don't recognise the name.

You would be an extraordinary person indeed if you were. Though, of course, we all think we are.

Being a programmer, I do that all the time, when facts show me that my thinking was completely wrong.