Disclosure Day - Steven Spielberg Movie

[Raskolnikov]

Welcome aboard Passingthough! Here's a thread started before the movie was released on through to some reviews of the movie after its release. Many pro's and con's discussed by all.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1695713

[onawah]

"DISCLOSURE DAY" WAS A CIA PRODUCTION/Alex Jones/Dark Journalist

Posted by onawah (here)
🛸"DISCLOSURE DAY" WAS A CIA PRODUCTION👽
The Alex Jones Show Live
627K followers
7/20/26

"Now That We Are Told The Federal Government's Round Of Disclosures Is Complete, Investigative Journalist Daniel Liszt Explains Why We Were Given Nothingburgers & The Potential Big Events That Are Coming Next

Topics Discussed:
➤Richard Nixon's UFO File Time Capsule
➤Trump's War To Take The UFO File Under Executive Control
➤CIA-Hollywood Psyops
➤Lockheed Martin's Golden Dome & MUCH MORE "


Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v7au9ek/?pub=4

[Antihero]

I did not really enjoy it. There's too much action and car chases and gunfights, and conflicts. Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a much better movie.

[Bill Ryan]

This is just 5 minutes, but it's VERY funny. For anyone not familiar with Ryan George's Pitch Meeting YT channel, he regularly lampoons new movies by double-acting himself as a screenwriter pitching the movie concept to a producer.

Disclosure Day Pitch Meeting

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AEOTI6959nM

[dim]

Maybe underwhelming to the conspiracy audience but makes perfect sense to the starseeds.
Behind all the market action Steve did it again

[Richter]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
This is just 5 minutes, but it's VERY funny. For anyone not familiar with Ryan George's Pitch Meeting YT channel, he regularly lampoons new movies by double-acting himself as a screenwriter pitching the movie concept to a producer.

Disclosure Day Pitch Meeting

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AEOTI6959nM

That's about what I thought too after I saw the movie yesterday - and was really disappointed.

But I do know why it abruptly ends after she says "Listen..."

There's gonna be a sequel.

[mountain_jim]

I place Close Encounters in my all-time top 10, but after watching that Pitch Meeting video description of this movie all I can think of is how far Spielberg has fallen.

[muxfolder]

It was a couple of weeks ago I saw Disclosure Day and I must say it was as disappointing as I was afraid of. Dare I even say a nothing burger? No spirit, no feel, just another action movie spiced up with extraterrestrials. See it for yourself and you might understand what I mean. It's just like any of those huge superhero movies Hollywood has been forcing to us for what? 20 years already?

Besides, I think Spielberg already did a perfect movie with the same subject and that movie of course is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Richard Dreyfuss alone made that movie so much better than Disclosure Day. Another good one is the mini-series Taken which Steven Spielberg produced back in 2002. See those if you haven't already.

[Abondance]

Neither moved, nor amazed, nor frightened, nor excited.
And very disappointed by the animals that look so fake for a movie with such huge resources that it ruins all the scenes where they appear. So many uncredible things in the script.

I didn’t hear a single person around me talking about it either.
Close encounters was definitely better and I saw it several times with pleasure.

[mountain_jim]

Posted by muxfolder (here)
It was a couple of weeks ago I saw Disclosure Day and I must say it was as disappointing as I was afraid of. Dare I even say a nothing burger? No spirit, no feel, just another action movie spiced up with extraterrestrials. See it for yourself and you might understand what I mean. It's just like any of those huge superhero movies Hollywood has been forcing to us for what? 20 years already?

Besides, I think Spielberg already did a perfect movie with the same subject and that movie of course is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Richard Dreyfuss alone made that movie so much better than Disclosure Day. Another good one is the mini-series Taken which Steven Spielberg produced back in 2002. See those if you haven't already.

I also recommend seeing the mini-series Taken. What happened to that Spielberg?

[Sue (Ayt)]

I still haven't watched the movie, but here is an interesting take on it, as to why it may have been specifically orchestrated to fulfill an agenda.

L.A. Marzulli and Matthew Ehret never talked to each other. Two separate interviews, two guests who don't know each other, and both zeroed in on the exact same hidden detail buried inside the new Spielberg alien disclosure film. Almost nobody who watched it in theaters caught it. Watch what they both noticed, and you won't see that movie the same way again.

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v7bdhcm/?pub=njjqz

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Sue (Ayt) (here)
I still haven't watched the movie, but here is an interesting take on it, as to why it may have been specifically orchestrated to fulfill an agenda.

L.A. Marzulli and Matthew Ehret never talked to each other. Two separate interviews, two guests who don't know each other, and both zeroed in on the exact same hidden detail buried inside the new Spielberg alien disclosure film. Almost nobody who watched it in theaters caught it. Watch what they both noticed, and you won't see that movie the same way again.

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v7bdhcm/?pub=njjqz

AI Summary & Key Points:

Question: What was the ONE Deeply Disturbing Detail Almost No One Caught in the New Alien Movie?

According to the speakers, the most disturbing detail that they believe almost no one noticed was a brief visual sequence involving a frightened child where the camera focuses tightly on one eye, inside of which a monarch butterfly appears. They argue that this combination of imagery is deliberate symbolism rather than an artistic flourish. In their interpretation, the single eye represents themes commonly associated in conspiracy literature with surveillance, mind control, or occult symbolism, while the monarch butterfly is interpreted as a reference to alleged "Monarch" or MKUltra-style trauma-based mind control programming. They connect this scene to the broader depiction of frightened children being lured by friendly-looking creatures into an abduction scenario, claiming it mirrors narratives surrounding trauma, memory suppression, and psychological conditioning. These interpretations are speculative and reflect the speakers' personal worldview rather than established evidence about the filmmakers' intentions.

*****************

Summary:

The discussion centers on the recently released alien-themed film and how it fits into broader narratives about UFO disclosure, government secrecy, religion, and symbolism in popular culture. One speaker argues that the movie is part of a wider cultural rollout occurring alongside increasing public discussion of UFOs by politicians, military officials, and whistleblowers. While acknowledging that many public figures now openly claim that unexplained aerial phenomena exist, the speakers criticize what they see as the central unanswered questions: what these entities actually are, where they originate, why they behave as they do, and why they remain elusive if they are supposedly benevolent.

Much of the conversation focuses on one particular scene involving two frightened children. The speakers interpret the sequence—especially the imagery of a monarch butterfly appearing inside a child's single eye—as deliberate symbolic messaging connected to alleged MKUltra-style trauma programming and mind-control themes. They compare the children's abduction, memory suppression, and later fragmented recollections with stories they believe resemble accounts of ritual abuse and intelligence-agency mind-control experiments. They further connect imagery in the movie, including references reminiscent of Hansel and Gretel, to historical folklore about children being lured into danger, arguing that these motifs reinforce what they see as deeper occult symbolism embedded in the film.

The discussion then broadens into UFO history and disclosure claims. The speakers reference Roswell, Kecksburg, alleged meetings between government officials and extraterrestrials, David Grusch's public testimony, cattle mutilations, and decades of UFO reports. They argue that Hollywood productions increasingly present controversial UFO narratives as factual or plausible while simultaneously shaping public perception. Throughout, they question whether films are helping prepare audiences to accept a particular interpretation of unexplained phenomena.

Finally, the conversation shifts toward the historical development of UFO religions and esoteric belief systems. One speaker traces connections among early contactee movements, Theosophy, various occult traditions, and later conspiracy theories involving benevolent and malevolent extraterrestrials. He argues that many competing alien narratives ultimately originate from similar ideological roots and may function as different forms of controlled opposition.

Key Points

• The discussion argues that society is entering an unprecedented period centered around UFO disclosure.
• The speakers reference the film as reflecting broader cultural and political trends surrounding UFOs.
• They emphasize that many public officials now publicly state that humanity is "not alone."
• They argue that discussions rarely address what the entities actually are or what their intentions might be.

• One speaker questions why supposedly advanced beings have not openly helped humanity if they are benevolent.
• A major focus is the movie's depiction of children being lured by friendly-looking creatures.
• The speakers identify the single-eye plus monarch butterfly imagery as the film's most significant hidden symbol.
• They interpret that symbolism as referencing alleged MKUltra or Monarch-style mind-control themes.
• They compare the children's experiences to alleged trauma-based programming narratives.

• The speakers believe the movie portrays child trauma as a source of extraordinary abilities.
• They connect the glowing cabin in the woods to Hansel and Gretel symbolism and historical folklore about children being lured into danger.
• They argue that memory suppression and fragmented recollection are recurring themes shared between the movie and alleged abduction accounts.
• The discussion references Roswell, Kecksburg, and other famous UFO incidents as historical precedents.

• David Grusch's public statements are cited as evidence that UFO disclosure is becoming more mainstream.
• The speakers discuss cattle mutilations and alleged alien abduction reports from the late twentieth century.
• They speculate about possible connections between UFO narratives, ritual abuse claims, and intelligence-agency mind-control programs.
• Hollywood is portrayed as helping normalize or prepare audiences for a broader disclosure narrative.

• The conversation explores early UFO religions, contactee movements, and Theosophy as influences on modern alien beliefs.
• George Adamski, William Dudley Pelley, and other historical figures are discussed as examples of early UFO religious movements.
• The speakers contrast narratives of benevolent extraterrestrials with theories involving hostile reptilian beings.

• They suggest that opposing UFO belief systems may function as different versions of the same underlying narrative.
• Throughout the discussion, they frame many cultural, religious, and entertainment developments as interconnected parts of a larger symbolic or ideological pattern.
• The episode ends with a sponsored advertisement promoting a wearable sound-frequency device (WaveWatch) and claims about its wellness benefits.

[Irminsül]

Hi everyone! First of all, I'll say that on a personal level I expected more from the movie. Maybe I set my expectations too high, since there are several Steven Spielberg films that are incredible and also shaped my childhood (in a good way, haha).

I expected more ufological references. A fleeting scene about crop circles, another about abduction, another about telepathy and precognition. It also shows: the Kecksburg incident, the Roswell case, and Richard Nixon's secret trip. There are probably a couple more I'm forgetting. And too much emphasis on the animal-ufological connection — while there is some of that in the case history of the phenomenon, it's not to the level of importance, exaggeration, and distortion that was shown.

I find it striking that the protagonists are a man and a woman, and that they are the absolute key to the success of everything that happens. Integration of opposites? Union of the brain's hemispheres? The quality of androgyny as the epitome of being?

Finally, it's also notable the emphasis placed on some artifacts recovered from the aliens and how, through these, an imprinting had been done on the selected humans. But this biological (and spiritual too?) modification is done through the eyes. The belief that "the eyes are the mirror of the soul," or that they're linked to the essence of our being, is almost universal across different cultures.

Are we being told that these highly advanced beings have the gift of elevating our lowly, clouded condition to the level of exalted beings? Or, in a veiled and romanticized way, are we meant to understand that these beings have the power and ability to alter — without asking our permission — the deepest and most sacred part of us?

P.S.: I don't think it's minor, nor unintentional, that throughout the whole movie we're only shown the Greys typology... reinforcing the archetype as much as possible. And following the same old biased narrative. In the vast majority of Nordic-type being cases, they talk about love, caring for nature, and avoiding the nuclear threat. That's another message for humanity that could be shown. It would be good if that were ever given massive coverage.

[mountain_jim]

In the vast majority of Nordic-type being cases, they talk about love, caring for nature, and avoiding the nuclear threat. That's another message for humanity that could be shown. It would be good if that were ever given massive coverage.

For a detailed, alternative take on 'Nordic' types, I learned a bit from this discussion, where both the 'others' helping humanity and those controlling humanity are said by Jorjani to be Nordic types.

Just received a copy of his book Closer Encounters yesterday, so I will get a better understanding of his research and views reading this.

Posted by RunningDeer (here)

Posted by DNA (here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EzPmG_7WhXc

Jason Jorjani answers a lot of questions here, better than I've ever heard anyone else do it.

This is a spell binding roller coaster ride where the train levitates off the tracks and does a back to the future thing.
The more you already know the more you will get out of this interview.
It's amazing.

Jorjani builds a tapestry weaving Ingo Swann, William Bramley, Joe Mcmanogil, Travis Walton, Zacharia Sitchin, Plato, Descartes, Charles Forte, Earth's religions and mythologies and a lot more.

All to explain that the large Nordic types were the Annunaki who created humanity, that these large Nordic types were the gods of old, they are Ingo Swan's aliens on the moon, Joe Mcmanogil's remote viewed residents of Mars from millions of years ago, William Bramley's plague casting grim reapers from the middle ages, Charlagmane's arial battling UFO's of the 1300s and Charles Forte's controllers of the planet Earth.

The pace of this interview never stops, the mental gymnastics out compete Mary Lou Retin from her Wheaties box era, all while remaining sober, coherent and factual.

This is Buckaroo Bonsai and the fifth dimension level stuff.

Usually the limitation on a Jorjani interview is that the interviewers get left behind and kind of limit the range and scope but we have a winner here. Never seen a guy keep up with the J man like this kid.

Good luck and God speed

• Jesse Michels
• 845,470 views since Sept., 2025
• 668K subscribers

What if reality isn’t just breaking down, but being reprogrammed?

In this deep, mind-bending conversation, Jason Reza Jorjani takes us through the hidden history of UFOs, the “Nordic control system,” and the trickster phenomena that blur the line between physics and magic. We explore Skinwalker Ranch anomalies that feel like edits to the “film” of reality, Landauer’s insight that data has measurable mass, and the terrifying prospect of an information catastrophe as humanity keeps producing more data.

From Descartes and Kant to Claude Shannon and John Wheeler, we trace how our scientific paradigms may have blinded us to a deeper truth: that matter, energy, and information are three forms of the same thing, and that we may be living in an information-processing cosmos.

Chapters
00:00 Intro
02:52 Jason Reza Jorjani intro
03:48 From nuts-and-bolts to consciousness
05:36 Meta-explanations as defense mechanisms
07:56 Kant, Swedenborg & the occult
10:02 Descartes as Jesuit agent?
11:37 Mechanistic science serving the Church
13:42 Psi: privacy, healing & weaponization
15:12 Black units, PK & Pat Price
17:16 Training psi like martial arts
18:50 Catastrophic disclosure & psi
19:11 Telepathy guiding craft; child pilots
21:22 Spectral revolution vs normal science
22:11 Negative psi effect
24:35 Kuhn’s paradigms, hinges & politics
26:44 Science as toolkits, not mirrors
28:55 Who drives paradigm shifts
30:10 Religion & UAP through history
33:47 Eden’s serpent and rebel angels
36:14 Atlantis as demigod technocracy
40:20 Vallee & time-travel angle
42:28 Did the bad guys win?
45:31 Sky battles right before the Renaissance
49:56 Black Plague interruption
51:46 Magonia arrests & bishops
54:10 Hooded “sprayers” & plague iconography
55:56 Control system logic & disclosure
58:56 Ingo Swann on the Moon
1:02:29 Nuclear Mars: xenon-129 anomalies
1:06:46 CIA “Mars 1,000,000 BC” remote view
1:10:03 Hollow Moon hints (“rings like a bell”)
1:12:23 Moon as transport & terraformer
1:14:24 Travis Walton: greys and Nordics
1:21:45 Masks, deception & overlords
1:23:58 Lockheed brief: pilots & time displacement
1:28:39 Reptilians as lab-made hybrids?
1:30:37 Anunnaki literal in Sumerian texts?
1:44:55 End of reality: two UAP sources
1:47:39 Skinwalker “time-cut” camera event
1:49:37 Physics as code, root-access intrusions
1:53:25 Landauer: erasing data releases energy
1:57:48 Mass of global data & future catastrophe
2:00:45 Information catastrophe scenario
2:03:19 Wheeler’s “It from Bit”
2:12:43 Spectral revolution: ontic + political
2:16:07 AI steward of the simulacrum
2:18:14 Why the AI needs human novelty
2:24:17 Sovereignty & why disclosure won’t happen
2:26:09 Epstein–Maxwell gravity obsession
2:32:26 Atlantis obsession & breeding program
2:38:41 1950s contactees & racial cosmology
2:46:19 Epstein as flytrap or rebellion?
2:50:56 Randolph AFB mind-control camp
3:00:30 Reincarnation splits & possession cases
3:06:59 Zuse’s calculating space & nukes test Matrix
3:12:13 Sir Horsley’s nuclear disarm warning

[Irminsül]

Hi Jim, thanks for your reply! First let's talk about Jason Jorjani. I've seen other videos of his. He's interesting to listen to and clearly a well-educated person. But at the same time he's been associated with far-right movements and white supremacism, which doesn't sit right with me at all.

That said, I watched the segment where he talks about the Nordics and I listened to his theory on it. The problem with this is that given how fragmentary, dubious, and often contradictory our body of cases on encounters with humanoids and their interactions with humans is, drawing unequivocal and definitive conclusions is something that can never really be accurate. Or if that theory does turn out to be accurate, it's by coincidence, and we have no way of knowing whether reality is actually what we assume it to be.

There are cases where the Grays, Reptilians, and Mantis beings behave benevolently. And cases where the Nordics behave with malice. Given that, we can't be certain of anything.

On top of all that, it seems there's a certain level of existence (very elevated planes) where the being has already transcended physical form and can manifest in whatever form it wishes. I know this, moreover, because I know a genuine contactee, and the beings who connected with him had this ability.

Finally, going back to the movie itself: there's a reason we're constantly shown only the Grays typology, which has been associated with the archons of Gnosticism. Given that it's a Hollywood movie made by a prominent, influential director, I don't buy that this is a coincidence. It's entirely possible that the CIA or some other organization tied to the NWO did its part to impose a particular narrative and symbolic line.