I love how you put this. Beautifully said. Disclosure isn't really about the declassification of physical evidence, but about encountering something that cannot be categorized, boxed in, or fully explained or comprehended. The true nature of reality reaches so far into the strange unknown. And it's so important that those seeking true disclosure look to the experiencers themselves, rather than relying solely on the news or government authorities to convey something that those who have actually witnessed the phenomenon firsthand can barely begin to describe.
I like that you discuss the messy, individuality of experiences, and then accentuate that by showing several angles from experiencers. It highlights the importance of the collective. Our stories complete one another, and looking at our multitude, our interpretations, our meaning-making, we can see something vast that leaves no stone unturned.
We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.
Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920
There are too many kinds of "disclosure" for the term to be very useful without some enhancement.
Disclosure of personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
Disclosure of secrets that should not be, or should no longer be, secrets.
Disclosure of covert government acts that were and are ill-considered, harmful and/or illegal.
Disclosure of the existence of NHI in our physical reality.
Disclosure of the existence of NHI entities in our noosphere.
Disclosure of truths that are hidden.
Disclosure of harmful lies as lies.
Disclosure of Christmas gifts when you open the presents.
Disclosure of the doctor's diagnosis of cancer.
It seems to me that all "disclosure" is inherently ontologically disturbing. It makes us aware of things we weren't previously aware of. Sometimes, it shifts our ontology in an easy direction, and we can integrate the change easily. Sometimes, it's a hard direction. Sometimes so hard that we can't face the shift -- we need time to rebuild a new reality, and need to cling to the old reality until we've caught our breath, even though we know it isn't true.
Thanks for your thorough review as well as listing other Experiencer reviewers which really provide a comprehensive cultural context.
My question now would be for anyone reviewing films like: Disclosure Day, Age of Disclosure, earlier released films since 2017 or films still to be released:
What film imagery & stories, narratives & myth will (or will not) play a Conscious Transformative METANOIA Role in the needed CULTURAL INITIATION PROCESS ?
This dramatized podcast obviously caught my attention. Did anyone know about it? "The Space Within is a must-listen for those who love the thrill of unraveling the unexplained. Jessica Chastain delivers a fascinating performance as Dr. Maddie Wyle, a psychiatrist driven to uncover the extraordinary changes in young Sophie Lewin and others like her after their inexplicable disappearances. Expertly weaving themes of love, redemption, and the human mind's incredible potential, this 8-part series offers an unforgettable journey that questions the boundaries of science and our reality." https://youtu.be/6ZTp_ZvjWRM?si=3oauaSKCFfwqwZCG
You start off championing the experiencer and experience vs observed physical realities. Then you argue against collapsing the wave, holding both physical and felt without going just one direction. True reality exists in paradox!
I like the zeitgeist review the best, as I think that this movie is a preparation for Project Bluebeam.
Nice article. Thank you. I notice you often, when referring to anomalous experiences, use the word "strange." That strikes me as...strange. In the 90s, after viewing and digesting a VHS of Dr. Greers Disclosure even in Washington, I lay in a field looking up at the starry sky. I flashed my flashlight three times, pointing straight up, thinking to myself "Space brothers, who are you?" At that instant, three "stars" in the centre of my field of vision, began to move in formation. I asked my wife, "do you see that?" She did. You could say that was strange, but the word that fits better is "awe". It is awe that changes people, opens them to possibilities, and loosens rigidities. Strangeness makes people afraid, or curious at best. Perhaps they are on a continuum....Anyway, thank you for keeping alive these subjective aspect of the Phenomenon. It is real. There are probably vaults with alien gear as well, and more twists and turns than a hot summer night in sweaty pyjamas.
As a trial lawyer and philosophy major I beg you to please stop the misusing the term anecdote in relation to testimonial evidence. Anecdote actually means anecdote when applied to testimonial evidence. The actual statements delivered in structured testimonial settings designed to demonstrate reliability under an application of evidentiary rules are not anecdotes.
Anecdotal when applied to physical evidence tested in a structured scientific study refers to a summary category of statements that do not strictly state the actual content of the evidentiary data itself. In law we might call this dicta.
The epistemology surrounding different classes of evidence is extremely poor in broad societal use. Those trained in STEM disciplines are the worst perpetrators. They conflate a type of empirical method as being an adequate description of logic. They are flatly incorrect. Evidence is a broad category of information that can be used to establish proof. Proof is an agreed upon standard to establish consensus. It can also refer to a more specific type of structured logical form. Not all proof is a proof.
You can certainly extract quantitative data from anecdotes in the form of statistics.
If there were 500 reports of a UFO yesterday, and 1000 today, and 250 tomorrow, that is quantitative data. You can also break down the anecdotes by linguistic components, to see how many of the viewers saw a silver craft, and how many saw a blue craft.
COVID is an example. Anecdotal reports of people claiming they are sick and not showing up for work form a foundation for trends, which can be used to hypothesize underlying causes, or -- at the very least -- early warning of an expanding pandemic.
One of the casualties of the Robertson panel decision to suppress and debunk reports of UFO sightings is the longitudinal data over a rather long span of time, and particularly, information about changes in sightings.
Presume we had been actually collecting anecdotal UFO data since 1950 instead of suppressing it, and found that there has been a slow increase in sightings over the last 60 years, but in the last 20 years, it has increased much faster, and in the last year, has reached something that looks like exponential growth. Regardless of what the underlying cause might be, that data alone would be both quantitative, and of sharp interest.
Of course, we haven't been tracking it at all. We've been suppressing it.
The definition that I just looked up says that an anecdote is a "brief personal story."
That would hold no contradiction to offering anecdotes in legal testimony. "I saw the defendant pull a gun and shoot the victim." It's a brief personal story, and would (I presume) serve as legal testimony.
I've never seen or heard of your second use of the term. AI response is
>>
"In research, "anecdotal" should generally not be used as a synonym for "data summary".
"While you cannot use it for quantitative findings, anecdotes can become valid qualitative data if they are collected systematically. If a researcher intentionally gathers, codes, and analyzes multiple individual stories to identify common themes or patterns, those collective stories serve as the foundational data. However, even in qualitative research, this is called "qualitative data" or "thematic analysis" rather than "anecdotal data."
>>
STEM can certainly be arrogant and misguided. I think there are two aspects to this.
First, there's been a deliberate, CIA-initiated effort to discredit and suppress UAP reporting (this is now part of the official record, see CIA/Robertson Panel), in particular suppressing and ridiculing anecdotal evidence and demanding "hard evidence" that is between difficult and impossible to obtain. This tainted the term "anecdote."
Second, there's a weird belief that mathematization is required to form a valid scientific or engineering principle. This is both untrue, and really, quite ridiculous.
I love how you put this. Beautifully said. Disclosure isn't really about the declassification of physical evidence, but about encountering something that cannot be categorized, boxed in, or fully explained or comprehended. The true nature of reality reaches so far into the strange unknown. And it's so important that those seeking true disclosure look to the experiencers themselves, rather than relying solely on the news or government authorities to convey something that those who have actually witnessed the phenomenon firsthand can barely begin to describe.
I like that you discuss the messy, individuality of experiences, and then accentuate that by showing several angles from experiencers. It highlights the importance of the collective. Our stories complete one another, and looking at our multitude, our interpretations, our meaning-making, we can see something vast that leaves no stone unturned.
(The art is really stunning in this one, too.)
We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.
Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920
There are too many kinds of "disclosure" for the term to be very useful without some enhancement.
Disclosure of personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
Disclosure of secrets that should not be, or should no longer be, secrets.
Disclosure of covert government acts that were and are ill-considered, harmful and/or illegal.
Disclosure of the existence of NHI in our physical reality.
Disclosure of the existence of NHI entities in our noosphere.
Disclosure of truths that are hidden.
Disclosure of harmful lies as lies.
Disclosure of Christmas gifts when you open the presents.
Disclosure of the doctor's diagnosis of cancer.
It seems to me that all "disclosure" is inherently ontologically disturbing. It makes us aware of things we weren't previously aware of. Sometimes, it shifts our ontology in an easy direction, and we can integrate the change easily. Sometimes, it's a hard direction. Sometimes so hard that we can't face the shift -- we need time to rebuild a new reality, and need to cling to the old reality until we've caught our breath, even though we know it isn't true.
Thanks for your thorough review as well as listing other Experiencer reviewers which really provide a comprehensive cultural context.
My question now would be for anyone reviewing films like: Disclosure Day, Age of Disclosure, earlier released films since 2017 or films still to be released:
What film imagery & stories, narratives & myth will (or will not) play a Conscious Transformative METANOIA Role in the needed CULTURAL INITIATION PROCESS ?
This dramatized podcast obviously caught my attention. Did anyone know about it? "The Space Within is a must-listen for those who love the thrill of unraveling the unexplained. Jessica Chastain delivers a fascinating performance as Dr. Maddie Wyle, a psychiatrist driven to uncover the extraordinary changes in young Sophie Lewin and others like her after their inexplicable disappearances. Expertly weaving themes of love, redemption, and the human mind's incredible potential, this 8-part series offers an unforgettable journey that questions the boundaries of science and our reality." https://youtu.be/6ZTp_ZvjWRM?si=3oauaSKCFfwqwZCG
You start off championing the experiencer and experience vs observed physical realities. Then you argue against collapsing the wave, holding both physical and felt without going just one direction. True reality exists in paradox!
I like the zeitgeist review the best, as I think that this movie is a preparation for Project Bluebeam.
Do you anticipate an article on this project?
Great insights, as usual, thank you
I especially like the realization that the boundary runs through us. And the artwork is stunning.
Nice article. Thank you. I notice you often, when referring to anomalous experiences, use the word "strange." That strikes me as...strange. In the 90s, after viewing and digesting a VHS of Dr. Greers Disclosure even in Washington, I lay in a field looking up at the starry sky. I flashed my flashlight three times, pointing straight up, thinking to myself "Space brothers, who are you?" At that instant, three "stars" in the centre of my field of vision, began to move in formation. I asked my wife, "do you see that?" She did. You could say that was strange, but the word that fits better is "awe". It is awe that changes people, opens them to possibilities, and loosens rigidities. Strangeness makes people afraid, or curious at best. Perhaps they are on a continuum....Anyway, thank you for keeping alive these subjective aspect of the Phenomenon. It is real. There are probably vaults with alien gear as well, and more twists and turns than a hot summer night in sweaty pyjamas.
As a trial lawyer and philosophy major I beg you to please stop the misusing the term anecdote in relation to testimonial evidence. Anecdote actually means anecdote when applied to testimonial evidence. The actual statements delivered in structured testimonial settings designed to demonstrate reliability under an application of evidentiary rules are not anecdotes.
Anecdotal when applied to physical evidence tested in a structured scientific study refers to a summary category of statements that do not strictly state the actual content of the evidentiary data itself. In law we might call this dicta.
The epistemology surrounding different classes of evidence is extremely poor in broad societal use. Those trained in STEM disciplines are the worst perpetrators. They conflate a type of empirical method as being an adequate description of logic. They are flatly incorrect. Evidence is a broad category of information that can be used to establish proof. Proof is an agreed upon standard to establish consensus. It can also refer to a more specific type of structured logical form. Not all proof is a proof.
I'm also going to pick a nit with the internet.
You can certainly extract quantitative data from anecdotes in the form of statistics.
If there were 500 reports of a UFO yesterday, and 1000 today, and 250 tomorrow, that is quantitative data. You can also break down the anecdotes by linguistic components, to see how many of the viewers saw a silver craft, and how many saw a blue craft.
COVID is an example. Anecdotal reports of people claiming they are sick and not showing up for work form a foundation for trends, which can be used to hypothesize underlying causes, or -- at the very least -- early warning of an expanding pandemic.
One of the casualties of the Robertson panel decision to suppress and debunk reports of UFO sightings is the longitudinal data over a rather long span of time, and particularly, information about changes in sightings.
Presume we had been actually collecting anecdotal UFO data since 1950 instead of suppressing it, and found that there has been a slow increase in sightings over the last 60 years, but in the last 20 years, it has increased much faster, and in the last year, has reached something that looks like exponential growth. Regardless of what the underlying cause might be, that data alone would be both quantitative, and of sharp interest.
Of course, we haven't been tracking it at all. We've been suppressing it.
I'm not sure I followed this.
The definition that I just looked up says that an anecdote is a "brief personal story."
That would hold no contradiction to offering anecdotes in legal testimony. "I saw the defendant pull a gun and shoot the victim." It's a brief personal story, and would (I presume) serve as legal testimony.
I've never seen or heard of your second use of the term. AI response is
>>
"In research, "anecdotal" should generally not be used as a synonym for "data summary".
"While you cannot use it for quantitative findings, anecdotes can become valid qualitative data if they are collected systematically. If a researcher intentionally gathers, codes, and analyzes multiple individual stories to identify common themes or patterns, those collective stories serve as the foundational data. However, even in qualitative research, this is called "qualitative data" or "thematic analysis" rather than "anecdotal data."
>>
STEM can certainly be arrogant and misguided. I think there are two aspects to this.
First, there's been a deliberate, CIA-initiated effort to discredit and suppress UAP reporting (this is now part of the official record, see CIA/Robertson Panel), in particular suppressing and ridiculing anecdotal evidence and demanding "hard evidence" that is between difficult and impossible to obtain. This tainted the term "anecdote."
Second, there's a weird belief that mathematization is required to form a valid scientific or engineering principle. This is both untrue, and really, quite ridiculous.