Confirmation, transparency, or disclosure?

Introduction

A lot of positive things have happened to the UFO subject during the last ten years, compared to the state of the UFO subject before 2017. For example, we have had U.S. military and intelligence confirmation that some UFOs/UAP are real and unexplainable. The public has also experienced Congressional hearings on different aspects of the UFO issue and institutional transparency. There has been some political and media movement in other countries as well regarding the UFO/UAP issue.

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?

Personally, I am somewhat 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.

Transparency is a claim about institutional behavior: it asks, What do institutions know about UFOs/UAP? Or, what do different governmental and private actors involved in the UFO issue know? Transparency ensures that information already held by the government is released, irrespective of its content. Transparency is also about institutional accountability and responsiveness to the public's rights and demands, which, of course, can vary depending on the country and governance.

Disclosure is tricky because it has three meanings: the two already mentioned, and a third one about how society decides what counts as valid knowledge, or what is possible or impossible. In other words, UFO disclosure is about boundary-work (who decides what is real, legitimate, etc.) on a societal and cultural level. Full disclosure would change fundamental beliefs and societal norms, i.e., move the boundary itself, with both foreseen and unforeseen consequences. In the sense I want to use the term "disclosure" here, it asks a third and more slippery question: Can we consider UFOs/UAP seriously and openly on a societal level? Again, the answer will vary between and within countries, which is one reason the question is slippery to give a simple answer to.

Why a conflation of the three terms is not innocent

The term disclosure is, in my view, the most complex of the three terms and overlaps the most with the terms confirmation and transparency. However, it is important to keep the distinction between the three terms, and the bulleted list is a brief description of why.

• You could have complete transparency and no confirmation: if a thorough declassification process showed every UFO case was a balloon, drone, or sensor error, it would be very transparent but confirm nothing of millions of people's UFO/UAP experiences.

• You can have confirmation without transparency: credible testimony establishing non-human origin while the evidence stays locked away.

• And you can have disclosure without governmental/institutional confirmation and/or transparency. However, without an official ontological acknowledgment that "we are not alone", a global disclosure will take more time than humanity can afford (think of different existential risks to the future of humanity and life on Earth).

It would be one thing if the above three terms got confused by accident. Institutions benefit from vague language because it allows them to avoid full disclosure. Institutions might seem to meet disclosure demands by releasing documents and low-quality footage, but they are not addressing underlying issues like the stigma of the UFO subject or the geopolitical implications of the UFO issue. 

This is not, I want to be clear, necessarily a sign of deliberate deception or concealment. But treating a transparency-process as a disclosure-process lets that authority go unexamined. That is one reason it is important to distinguish the meaning and implications of the three terms. 

Below is a simple test that can help thinking clearly about confirmation, transparency, and disclosure in relation to the UFO issue.

A test you can run yourself

Below is a diagnostic I would suggest applying to any UFO/UAP story that crosses your way or to any debate you may get involved with:

1. Confirmation test. Has independently verifiable or falsifiable evidence, checkable by outsiders, established non-human origin for at least one UFO/UAP case? Confirmation is a Yes or No answer to a categorical (or closed) question. 

2. Transparency test. Has previously withheld material been released, regardless of what it shows? Transparency is about whether procedural actions and events are done in the right way, at the right time, etc. It is more about form (doing something right) than substance (doing the right thing).

3. Disclosure test. In your country and compared to before 2017, can an average citizen have a serious conversation about UFOs/UAP without facing negative consequences? In your country and compared to pre-2017, can scientists, journalists, officials, or public figures engage in the UFO subject without risk of judgement or worse? Disclosure is about change or transformation on a civilisational level and is therefore hard to assess in its entirety. However, one can start on a local level.

Overview of my interpretation of the current UFO-situation

Confirmation: Yes, regarding the detection of unidentified anomalous phenomena (epistemology/method). But no official confirmation that at least one UFO/UAP is of non-human intelligence and/or non-human technology (ontology).

The last mentioned is the ontological acknowledgement that has to be delivered by the relevant authorities if global disclosure is to occur. But from a political or institutional perspective, the ontological acknowledgement is the most risky and awkward to deliver. What institution or authority is appropriate and trustworthy to deliver “we are not alone, and they are here”?

Transparency: Partially, yes. It is a mix of good and bad strategies and efforts by, for instance, AARO and the PURSUE-initiative. What stands out as positive is some members of Congress' engagement in the UFO/UAP issue and witness-testimony in Congressional hearings.

Disclosure: Partial and uneven. Even though the UFO subject has got more public, scientific, and mainstream media recognition compared to pre-2017, the social stigma that damages careers and public discussion persists, at least in my part of the world.

The last mentioned is worrisome; it seems like the only action happening is in the U.S. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate and applaud the transparency effort in the U.S., but where is the rest of the world?

Summary

Instead of saying "disclosure is happening," "nothing's happening," or "it's a psy-op," I believe my perspective on the 2026 UFO situation is more accurate and interesting. As you may have noticed, my view on what is going on is that we are experiencing a blend of confirmation, transparency, and, to a lesser extant, disclosure in relation to the UFO phenomenon (-na). 

Into that blend, you can also throw in some deliberate deception and concealment of the truth of the UFO/UAP issue.

Nonetheless, my assessment of the current UFO-situation is that the momentum will take us to more clarity and eventually to the ontological acknowledgement: we are not alone and some UFOs/UAP are of non-human origin. But is humanity prepared for such a potential existential shock?

The main point of the text above is that keeping confirmation, transparency, and disclosure separate helps clarify what is going on, and perhaps where we are headed. 

But I do not expect you to agree with my distinctions or my view on the current UFO-situation. Rather, I hope you get some inspiration to shape your own view on what is going on with the UFO issue in 2026. And perhaps ideas on how to move on from here.

My personal goal has always been and will continue to be global UFO disclosure. That is, a threshold or a state of the zeitgeist, where most of the world’s population has reached the ontological acknowledgement that we are not alone. Why is global disclosure so important to me? 

Well, in a nutshell, it is about future generations, environmental and ecological issues. Also, it is about restoring the spirit of democracy and healing from past and current transgressions committed in the name of UFO secrecy. But in order to heal, you must first acknowledge that harm has been committed.

As I have said before, UFO disclosure and institutional indictment will arrive simultaneously. That is why the truth of the UFO issue has always been a struggle and an embarrassment to make public.

Take care