Tensions in Bigelow's UFO disclosure-strategy

 Introduction

This post analyses the recent conversation between Mr Robert Bigelow and Mr George Knapp. Specifically, I will focus on the tensions in what I call Bigelow's UFO "disclosure-strategy". 

Source.

The talk between Knapp and Bigelow starts with the premise or idea that UFO disclosure is not so far away, compared to 30-40 years ago. The center of the talk is Bigelow's meeting with President Trump on January 6, 2026. In that meeting, Bigelow advised and encouraged the president to deliver the following confirmation regarding UFOs/UAP:

A non-human intelligence presence has been on Earth for a very long time, using spacecraft with performances completely beyond our capabilities and our known physics.

In the talk, Bigelow makes the sound claim that confirmation and disclosure are "welded together." That is, it would be very difficult and time-consuming to get to a worldwide disclosure without a presidential confirmation that some UFOs/UAP are of non-human origin and that "they" are here. 

I agree with Bigelow on this. For instance, I have previously addressed the necessity of a top down "ontological acknowledgement" here, and why an eventual transformational disclosure matters here.

But the main purpose of this post is to identify and reflect on some tensions in Bigelow's reasoning on how to get to a disclosure process. Because I think that the identified tensions are essential to solve in order to enable both confirmation and disclosure. You can think of the "tensions" as constraints or barriers for mainly reaching a worldwide disclosure.

The main theme I have identified in Bigelow's disclosure-strategy is trust. And my interpretation is that some of the major tensions in Bigelow's reasoning on how to embark on a disclosure process are:

• Trust between different human actors. In the text below, I will focus on two actors or groups: the so-called "gatekeepers" (a term used in the talk) and the U.S. government, especially the executive branch.

• Trust between humans and non-human intelligence (NHI).

So, on a more general level, the main theme could be social relationships, since any constructive relationship is built and maintained on mutual trust, respect, and so on. 

Initially, Bigelow's focus on trust and relationships surprised me positively. On the other hand, in what way could trust and relationships not be essential for a constructive disclosure process? So, I sympathise with Bigelow's focus on those themes as a necessary foundation for UFO/UAP disclosure. I say more about those themes in the section "Closing thoughts".

In the next section, I will focus on the tensions concerning the human side in Bigelow's reasoning about how to get to a disclosure process, i.e., the first point above about trust between different human actors or groups.

For the full context of what I discuss below, listen to the talk between George Knapp and Robert Bigelow in its entirety (click on the first link above).

Collective action dilemma as a barrier to UFO disclosure

This tension has structural similarities with a collective action dilemma. The main actors here are the government, the "gatekeepers" (both in the government and/or private contractors), and the citizens. Every actor or group has different rights, obligations, interests, credibility, etc., regarding the UFO issue and disclosure. 

Confirmation, transparency, or disclosure?

Photo by Google DeepMind on Unsplash

Introduction

A lot of positive things have happened to the UFO subject during the last ten years, compared to the status of the UFO subject before 2017. 

For example, we have had U.S. military and intelligence confirmation that some UFOs/UAP are real and unidentified, and, therefore, a national security issue, which has been both an enabler and a constraint in making the UFO subject credible. The public has also experienced U.S. Congressional hearings on different aspects of the UFO issue and institutional transparency. 

There has been some political and news- and social media movement in other countries as well regarding the UFO/UAP issue. (The link goes to a study on the "transparency effect" on r/UFO and r/UAP subreddits, but more relevant here is that the study note the "rich semantics associated with ‘disclosure’ and ‘transparency,’..." (p. 19, in the pdf-version)).

In short, the UFO phenomenon as a legitimate subject has made progress that was hard to imagine before 2017.

Nevertheless, let us pause and consider the current UFO-situation. What is happening, and how can we accurately describe it? Are we living in an era of confirmation, transparency, or disclosure? Or are we experiencing a mix of all three? (The question of psy-ops is complicated, so I will not address it here, but suffice to say is that the entirety of what started in 2017 is not a psy-op).

Personally, I am confused and thought I would write a blog post with the purpose of trying to clarify those three terms for myself.

What follows are my "definitions" of confirmation, transparency, and disclosure in relation to the UFO issue. You do not have to agree with my view. At the same time, I hope my distinctions can be of some use in clarifying the current state of the UFO subject and perhaps even the direction the UFO-situation is heading. 

Three terms that answer three different questions

Confirmation is a claim about the phenomenon itself: it asks, Is the phenomenon real? And what are unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP)? Take note: we have official confirmation that we have detected UAP, but it is not officially confirmed if any are non-human intelligence. The confirmation most people are awaiting would determine if a UFO/UAP case involves non-human technology or intelligence, based on independently verifiable and replicable evidence.

When Disclosure seems 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, intelligence, 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, ideology, and deliberate (and sometimes rogue) decisions to use any means necessary to hinder disclosure (which from a bureaucratic and technocratic perspective would be catastrophic).

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, and Cry-Wolf.

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.

Vallée's control mechanism and, if true, its implications for UFO disclosure

Background

[This post is a continuation of my project to apply sociological theories, concepts, and analysis to understand the UFO issue and the implications for UFO disclosure. - J. T]

This post explores the views of an AI-model on Jacques Vallée's theory of UFOs/UAP acting as a control mechanism (a "meta-frame" or "meta-system") on human cognition and belief systems. And if Vallée is right, what are the implications for UFO disclosure, or greater official transparency of the UFO issue? 

The conversation below between the AI-model ("C. S") and me ("J. T") is an excerpt of a longer conservation or session that included other but related questions about the UFO issue, disclosure, and so on. Therefore, I have selected and rearranged the most relevant parts and their order in the conversation below. Nevertheless, I hope you can make sense of and enjoy the conversation.

The structure of the conversation is:

1. What is Vallée's control mechanism and its relation to the "structure/agency"-interaction (or "duality") in sociology?

2. What are the implications of the control mechanism, if true, for official UFO/UAP disclosure?

3. Has scientist Beatrice Villaroel and collaborators found a way to test the existence of Vallée's control mechanism?

After the three main sections, I make a short comment on the AI-model's reasoning about Vallée's control mechanism (or cybernetic system) and the other two above mentioned themes.

At some places in the conversation below, I have afterwards made some clarifications or comments about [ ] the AI-model's responses and underlined some significant parts. You should take the conversation with a grain of salt, in the sense that neither the AI-model nor I have a complete understanding of the topics covered. And because of the, at the moment, speculative nature of Vallée's hypothesis of what the UFO phenomenon (-na) is and does. 

1. What is Vallée's control mechanism and its relation to the "structure/agency"-problem in sociology? 

J. T: Thanks for clarifying how niche construction in biology relates to the structure/agency issue in sociology. Let us get back to more speculative domains: Jacques Vallée has a theory of the UFO phenomena acting as a "control mechanism". How does the structure/agency problem map onto Vallée's theory of a control mechanism? And if the control mechanism hypothesis is correct, could it indicate that the UFO phenomena (what- or whoever is behind it) is doing some kind of niche construction?

C. S: This is a beautifully constructed question — you're essentially asking whether Vallée's control mechanism could be understood as externally imposed niche construction, which would reframe the entire UFO phenomenon in a radically interesting way. Let me work through this carefully.

---

Human origins- and nature: By chance or intentional influence?

Introduction

This post explores the likelihood of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ET hypothesis) regarding human origins or DNA-"tinkering" at some distant point in humanity's evolutionary trajectory. The ET hypothesis is an old idea in alternative theories on human evolution and cultural history (for example, the late Erich von Däniken), and is a common theme in the UFO community. Spielberg's new movie, "Disclosure Day," seems to hint at non-human intelligence having influenced (some parts of) humanity on a biological and an experiential level.  

A conversation between an AI-model and me will show some pros and cons of the ET hypothesis regarding human evolution. You can find the conversation under the next headline. Note that my prompts are marked as J. T. The AI-model's replies or reasoning are marked as C. S. 

Now, take the below conservation with a grain of salt. Practice critical thinking when reading both my prompts or questions and the AI-model's responses. For example, you can think of more relevant or sophisticated prompts or questions about the ET hypothesis to an AI-model. I asked the AI-model about the ET hypothesis regarding human origins or DNA tinkering, with no prior preparation or strategy (which in hindsight did not generate the most sophisticated conversation).

The idea of "human as an invasive species" from my first prompt below comes from a recent Bob Lazar-interview (also with Luigi Venditelli) on the Joe Rogan Show. At the 38-minute mark, the video features Rogan and Lazar talking about government UFO secrecy and Rogan's "invasive species" idea about humans.

A scientist’s pursuit of the truth behind the UFO phenomenon

In my estimation, Dr James Edward McDonald (1920–1971) might be the greatest hero in the history of UFO-investigations.

McDonald’s courage in opposing the US government’s dismissal of the UFO issue as scientifically significant should act as a template for everyone who calls themselves a scientist and/or who claims to be a (sound) sceptic.

James E. McDonald (1920 - 1971), circa 1950.

His dedication and courage in pursuing the truth of the stigmatised UFO subject is inspiring. At the same time, tragic, since all the opposition he met from fellow scientists and politicians took a toll on him. James Edward McDonald took his own life in 1971; whether it was suicide is still an open question, according to some researchers.

I will not compose a biography of the life of James E. McDonald and his resolution transforming the UFO phenomenon into a valid matter for science and public conversation. Because there already exists an excellent biography, The Firestorm: Dr McDonald's Fight for UFO Science (2003) by Ann Druffell.

Instead, this post is a way for me to express appreciation for a human being who followed his instincts, his inquisitiveness, and who thoroughly employed the scientific method of uncovering the truth about reality no matter how that truth may be.

In a previous blog post, you can read about two current scientists' proposal to use McDonald's paper “Science in Default” as a template for a scientific approach to study UFOs.

However, I do not want to romanticise McDonald’s search for the truth and struggle to make the UFO phenomenon a legitimate scientific topic. His intense dedication — bordering on obsession or mania (?) — had devastating consequences for himself and his loved ones.