Disclosure Day - Steven Spielberg Movie

[Agape]

Posted by Eric J (Viking) (here)
David Icke
@davidicke
·
5h
I just watched the Spielberg film Disclosure Day that came out in England this afternoon. PSYOP.

https://x.com/davidicke/status/2064729406413643914?s=20

Thanks for the observation . I watched short but loaded interview with Steven Spielberg recently, thoroughly enjoyed his presentation but as I've seen many of his excellent movies involving "real timelines" I realised that he acts like "master magician" or tries to and most of his epic movies are "psy-ops".

I think he means well. He leads people "who are in" to more interesting information, gives out some keys that only those with experience understand straight away . Then shows how fragile is our our understanding of reality,
our naivety , naive expectations , faith in miracles to fix it.

I believe the movie will get grand reception once many people see it .

Or it may quietly stand aside with the "other disclosure movies" and only few will say they understand "what was it all about".


It seems to come with a warning regardless the "movie magic" it seems to have typically human behaviours and hard corners.



If it was me I would make more poetic and more misty movie in which people just appear and disappear in the mist .
It would cost far less 🤣

[Tintin]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/2060750008442634612

Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga
1/7 🧵

GPS—I know exactly who Spielberg has been meeting with since 2017, think Five Eyes (FVEY), after a New York Times article on the Pentagon’s UFO program (“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’”). Including trips to Germany, Brussels, Italy, the UK, and France.

The story was written by Spielberg, and the screenplay was written by longtime collaborator David Koepp.

🎬 The Spielberg Psyop: Deconstructing Disclosure Day

Let’s cut through the marketing fog. Disclosure Day, releasing June 12, 2026, isn’t some innocent return to Close Encounters nostalgia. This is a $115 million narrative weapon, and the target is far more specific than “entertainment.”

Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga

2/7

🔭 The Setup: What We’re Actually Watching

The plot skeleton is straightforward enough: Emily Blunt plays a Kansas City meteorologist whose live broadcast is hijacked—she becomes an involuntary conduit, speaking in tongues on air, relaying messages from something non-human. Josh O’Connor plays a whistleblower named Daniel Kellner who’s stolen classified data proving extraterrestrial contact. Colin Firth is the corporate/government antagonist trying to suppress disclosure. The central conflict: does the truth get released to all eight billion people simultaneously, or does it stay controlled by institutions?

Spielberg himself said it at CinemaCon: this film is “more truth than fiction.” Not speculation. He told audiences to bring a seatbelt. The screenwriter, David Koepp, went through 42 drafts—the most of his entire career, including Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds. You don’t do 42 drafts for a popcorn flick.


Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga

3/7

🎯 The Psychological Operation: Soft Disclosure and Ontological Conditioning

This is the core of what’s happening. The film functions on multiple levels simultaneously.

Level 1: Predictive Programming

Hollywood has always been the CIA’s preferred delivery mechanism for acclimating the public to paradigm shifts. Before the public accepts a new reality, they need to have already imagined it through fiction. This is basic psychological operations doctrine—reduce the shock of revelation by pre-exposing the population to the concept in a controlled, emotionally-managed format.

The timing is not subtle. The film arrives after:

- Congressional UAP hearings with whistleblowers testifying about “non-human biologics”
- Pentagon officials using the word “disclosure” in official briefings
- The documentary Age of Disclosure (directed by Dan Farah, who worked with Spielberg on Ready Player One) breaking streaming records on Amazon Prime within 48 hours

As X user @MarioNawfal noted: “Is this entertainment, or the first step in preparing the public for ontological shock?” It’s both. That’s the point.

Level 2: The Agnosticism Trap

Koepp explicitly laid out the theological agenda in his MovieMaker interview. He compared belief in aliens directly to belief in God, then declared: “the only reasonable position is agnostic.”

This isn’t casual musing. This is the philosophical payload. The film positions uncertainty as virtue and conviction as arrogance. By equating extraterrestrial intelligence with divine intelligence, the movie creates a framework where:

- Belief in God becomes equivalent to belief in aliens—both are “unseen entities”
- Religious faith is reframed as one possible interpretation among many
- The “reasonable” position is to admit you don’t know anything for certain

This is epistemological sabotage dressed as open-mindedness.

Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga

4/7

✝️ The Target: Christianity, the Church, and Religious Authority

This is where the psyop gets specific. The trailer is saturated with religious imagery—crosses, nuns staring skyward, iconography reminiscent of the Creation of Adam. This isn’t decoration. It’s demolition.

The Nuns and the Animals

One of the most revealing details from the trailer: wild animals entering bedrooms, nuns looking upward. The analysis from UAPedia nails it: “Both are figures of instinctive rather than institutional response: the animal that senses something before humans do, and the religious who have frameworks for the transcendent that predate every government.”

Spielberg is positioning religious figures as witnesses to their own obsolescence. The nuns aren’t authorities—they’re people whose belief system is about to be stress-tested into collapse. The film frames religious institutions as one of several “explanatory systems” (alongside government, media, and science) that all receive the same impossible signal simultaneously—and none of them can handle it.

The Annunciation Inversion

The trailer’s symbolic architecture is deliberately theological. In Christian tradition, the Annunciation is the moment the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will bear the Son of God—a divine message from above that brings redemption. Disclosure Day inverts this completely: the “message from above” is coded as destabilizing rather than redemptive. The meteorologist speaking in tongues isn’t receiving the Holy Spirit—she’s being hijacked by something that breaks language itself.

The Crucifix Question

The trailer places a crucifix prominently, then asks the implicit question: does contact with non-human intelligence destabilize theology or fulfill it? The film’s answer, based on everything we know, is the former. Faith appears “reactive rather than welcoming.” Institutional belief systems are portrayed as fragile things about to shatter.

The Nephilim Narrative

L.A. Marzulli, a Christian researcher who’s been tracking these themes for decades, identifies what he believes is the deeper deception: the film is conditioning audiences to accept that non-human entities created humanity. The trailer imagery resembling Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam isn’t homage—it’s replacement theology. The implication: we were made by them, not by God.

He connects this to the biblical Nephilim—the hybrid offspring of fallen angels and human women described in Genesis 6. Jesus Himself warned that the last days would mirror the days of Noah. The return of hybrid beings, the corruption of humanity, the blurring of natural order—this framework maps directly onto the film’s symbolic content.

The Lockstep Moment

The film’s climax appears to be a moment where the entire world is brought into “lockstep” around a shared narrative. Crowds fixated on a single global event. A coordinated unveiling. Marzulli calls this “the coming great deception.” Whether you accept his theological framework or not, the structural observation is correct: the film models a world where truth is delivered from above by institutional gatekeepers, and the entire planet accepts it simultaneously.


Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga

5/7

🧠 The Deeper Agenda: Five Objectives

1. Epistemological Destabilization Make people doubt their ability to know anything with certainty. If the "only reasonable position is agnostic," then all conviction—religious, political, scientific—is suspect.

2. Religious Rebranding Reframe Christianity not as revealed truth but as one primitive explanatory framework among many, soon to be superseded by the “real” revelation from above.

3. Authority Transfer Shift the locus of ultimate authority from Scripture and tradition to whatever the new “disclosed” reality turns out to be—conveniently managed by the same institutions the film pretends to critique.

4. Ontological Preparation Acclimate the global population to the concept of non-human intelligence so that when “disclosure” actually happens (in whatever form), the psychological shock is muted and managed.

5. False Equivalence The Koepp agnosticism move—equating belief in God with belief in aliens—creates a false symmetry. One is a theological claim about the ground of all being, the other is an empirical claim about biological entities. Conflating them is a category error designed to make religious belief look like superstition awaiting scientific replacement.

Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga

6/7

🎭 The Spielberg Problem: Why Him?

Spielberg isn’t some random director. He’s the most influential filmmaker alive. He shaped how multiple generations think about the extraordinary, the transcendent, and the unknown. Close Encounters made contact seem wondrous. E.T. made aliens friendly. War of the Worlds made them terrifying.

Now he’s making the “more truth than fiction” version. The one that claims to answer questions. The one that arrives precisely as real-world institutions are actively debating disclosure policy.

His involvement is the credibility injection. When your mom sees this movie and gets unsettled, she’s not going to think “CIA psyop”—she’s going to think “Spielberg movie.” That’s the delivery mechanism. The sugar coating on the pill.


Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga

7/7

🛡️ What to Watch For

When you see the film (or hear about it), pay attention to:

- Who controls the narrative in the film’s resolution? Does disclosure come from whistleblowers or from institutional gatekeepers deciding the public is “ready”?
- How religious characters are portrayed—are they wise, foolish, obsolete, or transformed?
- The creation imagery—is humanity’s origin attributed to God or to something else?
- The emotional arc—does the film leave you feeling liberated by truth or dependent on new authorities to interpret it?

Disclosure Day is not a movie about aliens. It’s a movie about who gets to define reality. And the answer it sells may be more dangerous than anything coming from the stars. 👿☠️

That's really an utterly brilliant synopsis, in my view - well done Tony

[mountain_jim]

(back to re-editing this after lunch)

The Nephilim Narrative

L.A. Marzulli, a Christian researcher who’s been tracking these themes for decades, identifies what he believes is the deeper deception: the film is conditioning audiences to accept that non-human entities created humanity. The trailer imagery resembling Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam isn’t homage—it’s replacement theology. The implication: we were made by them, not by God.

On this issue, I tend to suspect this screenplay's take is more likely to be correct (than a God's creation)- the current human DNA-structure was possibly directed and reprogrammed by progenitor-type beings for their own purposes, in my view, and (at least some of) the inactive 'junk DNA' may be analogous to maintenance programmers commenting out code to disable functionality and other 'code' likely edited for their purposes.

In any case, I would tend to agree with Spielberg's predictive programming here that organized religions with their resultant belief systems will be damaged by any real disclosure which gets at the root of megalithic ancient civilizations and past planetary history, and 'divine' creativity could still have come from other beings also derived from the same 'Source', not properly identified in the 'holy' texts passed down to us.

The 'them' were also made by 'God', just not the 'God' of current humanity's organized religion belief systems.

Just speculating here.



later - alternative takes to what I mentioned above concerning 'junk DNA'



https://scienceinsights.org/what-is-...t-actually-do/

“Junk DNA” is an outdated nickname for the roughly 99 percent of your genome that doesn’t directly code for proteins. Scientists once assumed these vast stretches of DNA were evolutionary leftovers with no real purpose. That assumption has turned out to be largely wrong. While the term stuck in popular culture, researchers now know that much of this non-coding DNA plays active roles in regulating genes, maintaining chromosome structure, and even contributing to disease when it goes awry.

Where the Name Came From

For decades, biology operated with a protein-centered view of genetics. If a stretch of DNA didn’t contain instructions for building a protein, it was considered irrelevant. Since only about 1 percent of the human genome codes for proteins, that left an enormous amount of DNA seemingly doing nothing. In the 1970s, geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the phrase “junk DNA” to describe it, and the label persisted for nearly 40 years.

The reasoning seemed logical at the time. Much of this non-coding DNA appeared to be made up of repetitive sequences, broken copies of old genes, and remnants of ancient viral infections. Without tools to study what these regions actually did inside living cells, scientists had little reason to question the label.

The biggest challenge to the “junk” label came in 2012, when a massive international effort called ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) published its findings. The project systematically tested the human genome for signs of biochemical activity and reported that about 80 percent of it participates in at least one biochemical event in at least one cell type. These events included binding proteins, influencing when and how genes get switched on, and producing RNA molecules that don’t code for proteins but still do meaningful work inside cells.

That 80 percent figure sparked intense debate. Some scientists argued that mere biochemical activity doesn’t prove a region is truly functional in a biologically meaningful way. Evolutionary analyses suggest a more conservative estimate: about 5 percent of the human genome shows signs of being preserved by natural selection across species, compared to the roughly 1.5 percent occupied by protein-coding genes. That still means around 3.5 percent of the genome consists of conserved non-coding elements that have been maintained across hundreds of millions of years of evolution, a strong signal that they do something important enough for nature to keep them intact.

The truth likely sits somewhere between these figures. Not all 80 percent is necessarily essential, but far more than 1.5 percent of the genome matters.

What Non-Coding DNA Actually Does

Non-coding DNA turns out to serve several distinct roles. The most well-understood is gene regulation. Your cells all carry the same DNA, yet a liver cell behaves nothing like a brain cell. The difference comes down to which genes are turned on, turned off, or dialed up and down, and non-coding DNA is central to that process.

< more at link >


also


https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/wha...lutionary-past

Junk DNA, then, is not just biological trash. It is a battlefield, a graveyard, and a museum. It preserves the story of an arms race waged in cells over hundreds of millions of years.

Echoes of Distant Ancestors

Junk DNA also contains clues about our deep evolutionary past, encoded in the form of pseudogenes. These are sequences that resemble functional genes but have been “turned off” by mutations. They no longer produce proteins, but their similarity to working genes reveals their origin.

Some pseudogenes are duplicates—copies of genes that lost function. Others are remnants of genes that were once essential in ancient ancestors but became unnecessary as environments and lifestyles changed. One famous example is the GULO gene, which in most mammals helps produce vitamin C. In humans and other primates, the gene exists but is broken—mutated and inactive.

This is why we must get vitamin C from our diet. Our distant primate ancestors lived in fruit-rich environments, and because they consumed plenty of vitamin C, the selective pressure to maintain the GULO gene disappeared. Eventually, mutations broke the gene beyond repair.

What makes this fascinating is that the broken GULO gene is still there, lying dormant in our DNA. Its presence tells a story: of primates swinging through fruit-laden forests, of dietary changes that reshaped biology, of how evolution removes what is no longer needed—but often doesn’t erase the past.

These pseudogenes are not accidents. They are like ancient texts—no longer read, but still preserved. They whisper secrets about the creatures we used to be.

[Agape]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XmUgz5vGbKI

Fresh analysis from someone who had just seen the 🍿 . Comes down to the same conclusion, "the man has nothing to add to the general plot".

For sure between those who "platonically believe" and those who "believe platonically" is an abyss . Two boats on giant sea.

I wish to further my idea ...about the Disclosure Day 2 . Dense , white, breathable fog descending on the Planet covering and purifying everything .
Some people walk through the Fog long time , finding themselves inside perfect spaces, of various geometrical shapes, clean and mostly empty . Inside the spheres appear dots of light then beings that resemble cold flame guiding them around , to the central Sphere of Light

They meet at the light flame in the centre holding hands transforming them to beings of light .

Another window opens. They are now part of much larger Space with system of joined spheres each inhabited by small group .
They learn to explore their options, light and dark , they learn to give command to machines.

They are guided but no one talks to them for long time .

Some decide "to return" and transform life on Earth.

In the meantime lots more people survived thanks to the Fog that feeds Life like heavenly mana. The planet turns green and humanity is now very childlike , in reversal from "depression to bliss".

Soldiers in various battlefields can be seen lying in the fresh grass and laughing .

The border guards hug incoming migrants, bowing to them with folded hands, offering tea and beverages .

After the Spheres and the Fog lifts no one remembers what has happened.


It's not a scary event , not even historical event . It's a time lapse of microevents that changed our history so fast.


🪉


Ending scene for the next movie , Disclosure 2. :

In the Spheres Giant Clock only several hours have passed . After 3 days in the Spheres , scientist walks out to the fresh air . 1000 years passed on Earth.
He walks far through ravines of now wild green planet to his home village to find his younger brother now turned to old sage lucky to live full 1000 years ( people since turned healthy and long lived again ).
The scientist hands him old cellphone turned new , a gift from the Sphere and "Proof" of what may have happened if ....
His brother offers him big fruit from his garden and trashbin for the phone.

The master and the student both understand there is no need for internet, for words .


All is transformed.

[Raskolnikov]

That was beautiful Agape. If we had directors like you making the Disclosure film, programming a brighter scenario, who knows what humanity would be able to achieve. I've had very similar thoughts. And reflecting on Graham Hancock's recent revelation (to himself at least) https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1717201,
your film is most likely much closer to the truth.

May watch it at a later date but in the meantime am looking forward to reading some reviews from you all!

[mountain_jim]

https://jdrucker.substack.com/p/spie...day-falls-flat

Spielberg’s ‘Disclosure Day’ Falls Flat: A Christian Perspective on Hollywood’s Latest Alien Push

I went in to prepare for battle against high-level propaganda. I left chuckling about how ham-fisted the attempt really was.

JD Rucker
Jun 12, 2026

Steven Spielberg has long been the master of blending science fiction with what feels eerily plausible. From Close Encounters of the Third Kind to E.T., his films have shaped how generations view the possibility of extraterrestrial life. With Disclosure Day, released amid growing Pentagon disclosures and cultural fascination with UFOs, many expected a cinematic event that could challenge faith at its core. Yet the result is something far less impressive—and perhaps more telling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_bfC4e_xOI

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=z_bfC4e_xOI

From a Christian worldview, the timing feels deliberate. As governments prepares more revelations about unidentified aerial phenomena, Hollywood rolls out another story normalizing the idea of visitors from beyond our world. The film centers on the lead up to forced disclosure, with characters grappling with what it means for humanity and, crucially, for belief in God.

Expectations ran high for technical brilliance and subtle subversion. Spielberg’s track record suggested a film that might elegantly weave anti-biblical themes into an entertaining package. Instead, audiences encounter something formulaic, predictable, and at times comically underwhelming. The plot follows familiar beats: good guys evading cartoonish antagonists, solving puzzles under pressure, all while the narrative telegraphs every twist. Even strong performances from leads like Emily Blunt cannot salvage the clunky execution that feels more like a throwback to 1980s adventure films than a modern blockbuster.

That mediocrity may be the most surprising element. A director known for elevating material delivers something that elicits awkward laughter rather than awe. One viewer described the climax as reminiscent of a rickroll, underscoring how the film fails to land its emotional or intellectual punches.

Yet the deeper concern lies not in the filmmaking but in the message. The story introduces a crisis of faith when undeniable evidence of aliens emerges. A character turns to a nun for guidance, asking how this reconciles with Scripture. The response offers reassurance: belief in God and aliens need not conflict. God made humanity supreme on Earth, the dialogue suggests, leaving room for other creations elsewhere in the vast cosmos.

This portrayal echoes positions taken by some theologians and even Vatican statements over the years, allowing for the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. C.S. Lewis explored similar ideas in his fiction. But it sidesteps the heart of biblical revelation.

Genesis records God’s deliberate creation of man in His image, granting dominion over the earth. The text offers no hint of parallel supreme beings on other worlds, nor does it frame humanity as merely one among many.

Such messaging risks softening resistance to what many discerning believers see as the ultimate deception. Scripture warns of strong delusion in the last days, where signs and wonders deceive even the elect if possible. The UFO phenomenon, long tied to occultic and interdimensional activity rather than distant planets, fits this pattern. Presenting “little gray men” as compatible with Christianity lowers guards precisely when vigilance is most needed.

The film’s failure to deliver either cinematic excellence or sophisticated propaganda may reveal Hollywood’s declining ability to captivate. Clichéd plots and on-the-nose dialogue replace the masterful subtlety of earlier works. Viewers expecting a threat to faith encounter instead a dull echo of familiar arguments that collapse under biblical scrutiny.

Yet the broader cultural effort continues. As disclosure narratives gain traction in official channels, entertainment serves as preparation. Christians must test everything, holding fast to what is good. The vastness of the universe testifies not to alien civilizations but to the glory of the Creator who spoke it into existence and centered His redemptive plan on this small planet and its inhabitants.

Ultimately, Disclosure Day serves as a reminder that not every cultural moment demands panic. Poor execution limits its reach. But the underlying push to normalize the extraterrestrial while diluting scriptural authority persists. Believers should approach such stories with eyes wide open, anchored in the unchanging Word that has withstood every challenge across millennia.

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.” — Luke 21:25

In an age of wonders and deceptions, that ancient warning calls us to discernment. Spielberg’s latest may not shake the foundations of faith for many, but it underscores the need to remain rooted in truth amid the noise.

[Rawhide68]

So Ironic one of the few IMAX Theaters in Sweden is at my Shopping Mall where I work.

[Rawhide68]

Steven guiding a youngster and explaining about old prop works.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlYNEej9t0

[Bill Ryan]

I've not seen the movie (and probably won't!). But I've been following the many online discussions with some interest. The mainstream film critics on Rotten Tomatoes give it 80%, but the rather more 'fringe' YouTube reviewers are almost all disappointed and dismissive of it, some of them very strongly so.

However, the most intelligent review I found was (surprisingly for me) from Glenn Beck. He argues, I think correctly, that it doesn't matter how well Spielberg directed it, or how good the script or the acting or the CGI was, or whether we should compare it with all the other classic films Spielberg has made.

Beck suggests that viewers and their friends or families should go see an early evening show and then go have dinner to talk about it. The only important topics, which Spielberg surely intended to be discussed, are: (my paraphrase)

• Did 'God' make man 'in his own image'?
• Did 'God' make all the ETs in his own image as well?
  (...and...)
• Would the ETs regard 'God' in the same way that we have been taught or conditioned to?
  (...and...)
• Are all the ETs as benevolent and altruistic as Spielberg depicts?

I JUST Saw Spielberg's "Disclosure Day." We HAVE to Talk About This

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MYodrgvCM68

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

The Drinker throws in his tuppence worth on Disclosure Day, mixing as usual his brutal wit with honest, critical analysis. Pretty much the only film critic around that I see eye to eye with on the vast majority of film, TV, and 'content' these days. Safe to say, I'm not going to bother watching this. The excitement, or at least the anticipation, of an upcoming Spielberg movie, is truly a thing of the past. The long past. That ship has sailed.

"...a tedious, meandering, unfocused, pretentious piece of sh!t"

Disclosure Day - Spielberg Should Stop Making Films

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NWnP8RdRrmM

[Agape]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I've not seen the movie (and probably won't!). But I've been following the many online discussions with some interest. The mainstream film critics on Rotten Tomatoes give it 80%, but the rather more 'fringe' YouTube reviewers are almost all disappointed and dismissive of it, some of them very strongly so.

However, the most intelligent review I found was (surprisingly for me) from Glenn Beck. He argues, I think correctly, that it doesn't matter how well Spielberg directed it, or how good the script or the acting or the CGI was, or whether we should compare it with all the other classic films Spielberg has made.

Beck suggests that viewers and their friends or families should go see an early evening show and then go have dinner to talk about it. The only important topics, which Spielberg surely intended to be discussed, are: (my paraphrase)

• Did 'God' make man 'in his own image'?
• Did 'God' make all the ETs in his own image as well?
  (...and...)
• Would the ETs regard 'God' in the same way that we have been taught or conditioned to?
  (...and...)
• Are all the ETs as benevolent and altruistic as Spielberg depicts?

I JUST Saw Spielberg's "Disclosure Day." We HAVE to Talk About This

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MYodrgvCM68

I would add one "technical questions" to THAT list Bill ,
intended for already , well informed audience ( chuckle ):

Is original man , older than THIS Universe ?


Of course the part about bunch of people trying to shield themselves behind single rock or street lantern made me laugh 😂 Because people in real time circumstances actually do that ...


Something gets stuck in the Wheel

[mountain_jim]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
The Drinker throws in his tuppence worth on Disclosure Day, mixing as usual his brutal wit with honest, critical analysis. Pretty much the only film critic around that I see eye to eye with on the vast majority of film, TV, and 'content' these days. Safe to say, I'm not going to bother watching this. The excitement, or at least the anticipation, of an upcoming Spielberg movie, is truly a thing of the past. The long past. That ship has sailed.

"...a tedious, meandering, unfocused, pretentious piece of sh!t"

Disclosure Day - Spielberg Should Stop Making Films

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NWnP8RdRrmM

After watching this review I can definitely save some time and or dollars here by not watching this movie.

But the time spent reading the comments under this youtube video was well worth it!

[ExomatrixTV]

• Hollywood & UFOs: How The CIA Influences Your Favorite Alien Movies:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yJUBSuPh1pM

• Our American Alchemists this week are Bryce Zabel and Brent Friedman. Check out their podcast Sound, Light and Frequency soundlightfrequency.com

For decades, U.S. intelligence (namely, the CIA and Office of Naval Intelligence) has been quietly shaping what Hollywood tells the public about UFOs, hiding truths in plain sight. Bryce Zabel and Brent Friedman, creators of the 1996 NBC alien-themed series Dark Skies, say a man claiming to be Naval Intelligence showed up at their own premiere party already knowing what was in their unaired pilot, and offered them a trade: classified access for guidance on their future scripts. Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist Director Tobe Hooper told Brent that Steven Spielberg got the same offer after Jaws, took the deal, and went on to make Close Encounters and E.T.. Separately, Brent Friedman says his family friend John Herrington who later became Secretary of Energy (Head of the entire Department of Energy) told him privately after a few drinks that aliens are real and he’s seen them. Official attempts have been made to get Herrington (now 87) to testify about these claims, but he’s ignored them. Friedman himself also reports of having had an encounter with a “Nordic” alien being. This was one of the wildest episodes we’ve ever filmed. Live now.

• soundlightfrequency.com
• x.com/hollywoodufos
• youtube.com/c/BryceZabel
• linkedin.com/in/brycezabel
• soundlightfrequency.com/dark-skies-pilot

The Basement: Bryce Zabel | Dark Skies and Hollywood UFO Deals:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fjN7gYGUZCM

• 0:00:00 - Intro
• 0:04:19 - From Oregon TV to Arguing UFOs with Carl Sagan
  
• 0:17:49 - George Knapp, Art Bell & Real Investigative Journalism
  
• 0:28:36 - Fired Over the 1969 Moon Landing
  
• 0:39:36 - Basement Magazine Battles & the McMinnville UFO Photos
  
• 0:49:05 - From TV News to Hollywood Screenwriter
  
• 0:55:57 - Dark Skies & the "We Are Watching You" Postcard
  
• 1:02:39 - A Visit from "JC" and the Secrets of the Universe
• 1:11:43 - The Captain, the Aquarium & What Dark Skies Got Right
  
• 1:26:00 - The Cemetery at Midnight
  
• 1:46:27 - Disclosure: Sober Not Somber, Hard Cut vs. Slow Dissolve
  
• 2:00:37 - After Disclosure: What Happens When We Know
  
• 2:13:30 - Is Spielberg an Asset? Close Encounters & Disclosure Day
  
• 2:25:10 - Men in Black vs. Dark Skies: 19 Non-Negotiable Demands
  
• 2:44:20 - Alternate History: If JFK Survived & the Beatles Stayed Together
• 2:51:32 - Sound, Light & Frequency and The Last Battle

[Bill Ryan]

Here's Richard Dolan, kind of apologizing for his recent experience at the movie theater.

"I found myself wanting to hate this movie", he says. "But I never got there."

He doesn't take issue with the many critical (and even angry!) reviews, agreeing that quite a lot of it was silly, unrealistic and maybe in some ways disappointing, at least compared to many people's hopeful expectations.

But he was pleased and surprised to see what Spielberg was trying to do, with commendable references to aspects of UFO history which the general public might not have been aware of at all. He understands the widespread disappointment and frustration with the slow-moving 'disclosure' process, and his discussion (and forgiveness) of that is quite interesting.

Why Didn't I Hate Disclosure Day?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GigW0ffAL54

[Johan (Keyholder)]

Well, I went to see the movie yesterday evening.
Interesting detail: I was the only spectator in the cinema!
It started at a quarter past eight in the evening, so a "prime time" on a Sunday.
But... of course there was at the same time the soccer match Belgium-Iran (and Belgium was NOT good...) in LA (worldchampionship).

While I don't "hate" the movie either (like Richard Dolan), it was a good average cinematic experience for me.

Highlight: the cardinal (bird). It so happens that this was the high school mascot when I was an exchangestudent in the bicentennial year.
I still have several souvenirs, with a cardinal bird pictured on it. 1976 was a "great" year for me.