When Disclosure is Co-opted: Recognising deception in the current UFO disclosure battle

A follow-up to "The Barriers to Global UFO Disclosure: Power, Betrayal, and the Compounding Cost of Secrecy"

Background

On February 19, 2026, President Trump signed a directive instructing federal agencies to identify and release government records concerning UFOs/UAP, alien or extraterrestrial life, and related matters. Whatever one thinks of the current U.S. administration, the directive represented a meaningful political acknowledgement that the American public deserves access to information that has been withheld for decades.

Then came the implementation.

Whistleblowers — current and former government employees and contractors with direct knowledge of UFO-related programs — were told their non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) would be waived. They could speak. But only through designated channels: AARO, ODNI, and PURSUE. Not to Congress directly. Not to the public. Back into the system or the "structure of UFO secrecy".

A UAP whistleblower named Matthew Brown published an article yesterday — July 24, 2026 — that I recommend reading in full. Titled "Catch and Kill," it documents in sobering detail why those three designated channels (mainly AARO and ODNI) are precisely the wrong ones to trust with sensitive whistleblower testimony. Brown's article is one of the most concretely argued pieces on the current UAP transparency effort I have read in some time. Hence, his article functions as a credible anchor for what I want to explore in this post.

Because reading Brown's account through a particular framework (military deception principles) reveals something that I think should be named directly:

What is currently being presented as a top down UFO/UAP transparency effort resembles the fingerprints of a psychological operation and/or institutional deception.

I am not claiming that everyone officially involved in the current UFO disclosure battle is consciously running a psy-op or reproducing deception. Neither am I claiming that the presidential directive was issued in bad faith. 

What I am claiming is that the institutional structures in place — independent of the intentions behind them — are producing outcomes consistent with well-documented military deception principles and tactics. 

And I am claiming these outcomes are likely not random. It is what happens when institutions (e.g., political, military, etc.) protecting decades of mismanagement of the UFO issue are put in charge of revealing, or whitewashing, the ethical and legal transgressions regarding UFO/UAP secrecy.

However, even though the outcomes are likely not accidental, it does not logically follow that the entire mismanagement of the UFO issue is because of deliberate deception, misdirection and/or concealment. 

Therefore, when you read the military deception tools below, keep in mind that the mismanagement of UFO transparency is most likely a complex mixture of incompetence, conformity, and deliberate decisions to use any means necessary to hinder disclosure (which from a bureaucratic and technocratic perspective would be catastrophic).

Four principles of military deception and why they matter here

The US Army Field Manual FM 90-2, Battlefield Deception (1988), documents principles and tactics of military deception. These tools of military deception were developed from game theory, historical analysis, etc., and they were originally designed for use against foreign adversaries in military contexts. The principles and tactics I will focus on are: Magruder's Principle, Jones' Dilemma, Cry-Wolf, and the Monkey's Paw.

The barriers to global UFO disclosure: Power, betrayal and the compounding cost of secrecy

Introduction

The production and reproduction of the political-economic structure, the primary barrier to global UAP disclosure. Source.

In my previous post, I argued that a global UFO/UAP disclosure is necessary because the ontological acknowledgement of the phenomenon's reality belongs to all of humanity, and because our institutions have both the duty and, I believe, the capacity to deliver it wisely.

What I deliberately left out of that post were the harder questions. The ones I find genuinely difficult to think through without arriving at conclusions that are uncomfortable and, unfortunately, realistic.

This post is an attempt to go into that uncomfortable territory honestly. It is a more pessimistic, or realistic, text than my previous one. Realistic in the sense of looking clearly at the barriers to global UFO disclosure without softening them into something more manageable than they are.

What I explore and claim in this post is nothing original. Many UFO researchers, and armchair commentators like myself, have considered the barriers to an official UFO disclosure throughout UFO history. For example, Richard Dolan recently commented on the UAP briefing at Capitol Hill on June 9, featuring David Grusch, members of Congress, and several prominent figures involved in the disclosure effort.

What Mr Dolan says in his YouTube-video (duration: 12:34 min.) about the key issues for disclosure being "legislative power" (e.g., whistleblower protection) and "the system defending itself" apply to what I write below.

One crucial thing that was said at the UAP briefing on Capitol Hill came from Representative Eric Burlison. Mr Burlison said something to the effect that the disclosure effort is a "world-wide call to action" (Rep. Burlison appears between 4:00 min. and 10:20 min., and to the end of the video - duration 30 min. - by News Nation).

I agree with Representative Burlison that collaboration between nations is necessary to trigger a global UFO disclosure process. The problems of legislative power and "the system defending itself" can be generalised to the entire world order, or the transnational and transactional power structure, if you will. 

This post addresses the nature and scope of barriers to global UFO/UAP disclosure. The USA is courageously and persistently leading the disclosure effort. But because of the complex and entrenched power relations and dynamics on a global level, I worry the current effort by the USA will not drive a global disclosure process (i.e., the acknowledgement that we are not alone and the following meaning-making conversation).

Why global UFO disclosure is necessary

Introduction

There are two distinct challenges inherent to a global UFO/UAP disclosure:

• The ontological acknowledgement: That the UFO phenomenon is real and that some UFOs/UAP are not made by human hands. That is, we are not alone. Most of the world has not reached an ontological acknowledgement that some UFOs/UAP do not originate from Earth.

• The meaning-making (or existential) conversation: The implications of the ontological acknowledgement for humanity, civilisation, science, religion, and our self-understanding. At this level of the disclosure process, we go beyond "Are UFOs real?" and start reflecting on "Who is behind some UFOs/UAP?", "Why are They here?", and how should we relate to this new baseline reality?

The latest attempt at some kind of UFO/UAP transparency by the US government is encouraging and should be recognised. At the same time, the PURSUE-initiative has at least two problems for driving a UFO/UAP-conversation on a global level.

First, the war.gov/ufo website is US-centric, military, and the result of a US president who divides people rather than unites them (that is just a description of the current reality). Second, I worry the website's content will mostly interest people who are already curious about the UFO/UAP issue. 

The purpose of the website seems to be "citizen science". Which in itself is an honourable activity, but will most probably not lead to a global ontological acknowledgement of the reality of UFOs/UAP. I am aware, however, that it is too early to draw any certain conclusions about the effects of the data on people's perception of the UFO/UAP issue.

Why global disclosure is necessary

Most of the world’s nations are still far behind the USA regarding political engagement and media coverage of the UFO/UAP topic. It is encouraging that the war.gov/ufo website has had over one billion views since the launch on 8 May. Nevertheless, I believe we will soon discover that the world needs courageous institutions and authorities who take the bull by the horns and make the ontological acknowledgement to the world. 

UFOs as a high-agency Platonic pattern: A synthesis of M. Levin's and J. Vallée's frameworks

Introduction

This post is a continuation of my exploration of theories, concepts, and methods that can facilitate our understanding of the origin, nature, and intent of the (UFO) phenomenon. In a couple of posts, I have used Dr Jacques Vallée's hypothesis on the UFO/UAP issue acting as a cybernetic system and combined and compared his framework to more established theories and concepts in, for instance, sociology.

In this post, I am combining Vallée's framework with Dr Michael Levin's research program on developmental/synthetic biology. With the help of an AI-model, this post explores the results of combining the two mentioned frameworks. The result is fascinating, but also raises questions about what activity or manifestations can be attributed to a "conventional" UFO (physical, technological) or not. 

In the conversation below, my prompts/questions/answers are marked in italics. The AI-model's responses are in normal text. Throughout the conversation, I have, in retrospect, made some comments and clarifications which are marked with [ ]. 

The structure of the conversation is:

1. How does Dr Levin's research program map onto Dr Vallée's hypothesis of UFOs/UAP as a cybernetic system?

2. The implications of Levin's "Platonic patterns" for Vallée's hypothesis?

3. The AI-model's question about my high strangeness experiences

The post ends with my reflections on the combination of Dr Levin's and Dr Vallée's frameworks.

Source (takes you to a blog post by Dr Michael Levin).

1. How does Dr Levin's research program map onto Vallée's hypothesis of UFOs/UAP as a cybernetic system?

We have been discussing the relevance and usefulness of Jacques Vallée's hypothesis of the UFO phenomenon acting as a cybernetic system, and applied it to my high strangeness experiences of the (UFO) phenomenon (whatever it is or represents). I would like you to critically reason about and evaluate Dr Michael Levin's research program on developmental/synthetic biology. You can read a summary of Dr Levin's argument and research program here: https://thoughtforms.life/a-short-argument-on-platonic-space-variable-agency-patterns-that-in-form-physics-biology-computer-science-and-cognitive-science/ Now, how does Dr Levin's argument and research program map onto Vallée's hypothesis of the UFO phenomenon as a cybernetic system?

The AI-model: Welcome back, Janne! Let me fetch and read Levin's summary before engaging with your question.

Read carefully. This is a genuinely extraordinary document — published just weeks ago, March 31, 2026 — and the mapping you're asking me to explore is both original and potentially profound. Let me give you my fullest analytical engagement. 

My first high strangeness experience and Vallée's meta system

Background

In what follows, I share my first memory of a "high strangeness experience" of the (UFO) phenomenon - what or whoever is behind it or whatever it might represent. I was somewhere between 7 or 9 years old (in the timeframe of 1982 to 1984). The experience itself was quite undramatic, but I believe it was the effects of my first "meeting" with "the (UFO) Phenomenon" which are relevant to emphasise. 

Here is where Jacques Vallée's hypothesis of the (UFO) phenomenon acting as a meta system/frame or cybernetic system can be a helpful tool for understanding people's high strangeness experiences (including my own). 

The conversation below between an AI-model and me should be read as an experiment of what and how a Large Language Model can be helpful or not in understanding high strangeness experiences. Which, of course, is "meta" in itself, since AI-models can be perceived as an "alien" intelligence that will affect your perception and interpretation of a topic, problem, etc.

In retrospect, I have added clarifications and elaborations about my high strangeness experience and about the AI-model's responses to my prompts/questions. Those additions are marked with [ ]. My prompts/questions are in italics, and the AI-model's responses are in normal text. 

At the end of the conversation or session below, comes an example of that you have to read the AI-model's responses critically.

The structure of the conversation:

1. My first memory of a high strangeness experience with "the Phenomenon"

2. A challenge to the AI-model

3. Summary

1. My first memory of a high strangeness experience with "the Phenomenon"

J. T: A continuation of my high strangeness experiences. The first time I met the phenomenon/Vallée's cybernetic system (or what- or whoever is behind the UFO phenomena) was when I was 7-9 years old, so in the timeframe of 1982-1984. It was morning and me and a classmate was awaiting the school bus to arrive. I was probably relaxed, just awaiting the bus. I looked straight ahead and far toward to the sky. Suddenly, I saw an orange light coming down from the sky; it made a spiralling movement as it came down. It lasted perhaps a couple of seconds. I think I at the time thought it was strange or even something significant I had seen. Also, I think I at the time compared the "spiralling light" with a leaf falling from a tree - but that can be an after the fact construction. Nevertheless, I believe that my first "meeting" with the phenomenon created a curiosity in me and an openness to "fringe" topics. [The effects of the experience, as I mentioned in the background part]. Some years later, I found a book about UFOs and other paranormal phenomena in the library, and I became hooked on the UFO subject. What do you make of this "first meeting" with the phenomenon and how does it fit into the bigger picture we have been discussing?

[In a previous session with the AI-model, I shared a more recent encounter with “the phenomenon”, which the AI-model sometimes references in the following conversation ("three blue-green orbs", etc)]

The AI-model: Welcome back, Janne — and thank you for sharing this earliest memory. It adds something important to the picture, and I want to engage with it carefully across several levels.