By Paul Collins and Phillip Collins
In the last installment of this series, these authors began a review of The Age of Disclosure, a 2025 UFO documentary directed and produced by Dan Farah. This documentary, which is little more than a collection of unsubstantiated claims and a retread of the same old tropes that have always plagued Ufology, appears to be part of a psychological operation launched by what the authors of this series call that AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity.
This collection of mostly Department of Defense (DOD) – based deep state actors and UFO disinformation agents had two incarnations within America’s defense establishment. The first incarnation, which was an official DOD body, was known as the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP). The second incarnation, which operated in an unofficial capacity, was known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
The last installment of this series pointed out that this AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity was identified by a 2024 report released by the DOD’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) as the source of baseless and wild UFO stories that have been circulating since at least 2017, when Establishment media outlets began publicizing the claims. These bizarre and far-fetched tales seem to be part of a very aggressive psychological operation conducted by AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity personnel. The Age of Disclosure may be the culmination of that operation.
The Age of Disclosure tries its best to convince its audience that humanity is entering a historic period when all that has been hidden regarding strange objects in the sky will finally be revealed. The documentary trots out several members of the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity, many of whom are little more than professional liars hiding behind the title of “whistleblower,” so that they can share evidence-free accounts that are presented as earth-shattering “revelations.” Many of the so-called “whistleblowers” and the UFO cases they recount in The Age of Disclosure have been dismantled in previous installments of this series.
The documentary does little to save the wild tales or the questionable tale-spinners from being exiled to the place where bad fiction is laid to rest. Instead of doling out indisputable video footage or confirmed alien artifacts, the film treats its audience to notorious UFO disinformation agent Luis Elizondo standing next to a blackboard conducting a lecture on the different types of alleged space visitors. Elizondo’s dubious background was tackled in the second and fifth installments of this series. That background, which is filled with suspicious activities, covert political circles and institutions, and more than a few deep state actors, makes one want to immediately dismiss anything Elizondo writes on a blackboard. Still, Elizondo’s schtick on The Age of Disclosure delivers a dose of poor comedy to anyone seeking a few cheap and fleeting laughs.
Watching Elizondo lay out details concerning what are likely fictitious extraterrestrials on a schoolmarm’s blackboard makes one wonder if the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity thought it could fool more people by employing a format that blends the Glenn Beck Show with Coast-to-Coast AM.
What is there not to laugh at (ever so briefly) in such a notion? All the bad humor aside, there is something of value that can be gleaned from The Age of Disclosure. The film provides discerning viewers with a glimpse at the real agenda of the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity, and it is not genuine disclosure.
The third installment of this series revealed that the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity’s fake disclosure campaign is being used to reenergize the militaristic and statist trends that were introduced with the Cold War. The Age of Disclosure, however, reveals an even deeper agenda: a radical overhaul of humanity’s religious institutions and the drastic altering of human spirituality brought about by a relentless attack on long held theological and spiritual beliefs. Aliens play the role of solvent in this attack, violently dissolving everything cherished by people of faith, from the stone tablets of 10 sacred precepts that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai to the holy teachings given by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount.
Elizondo appears before moviegoers and boldly declares: “This is a topic that has a potential to create serious ontological shock to society. It’s not just national security. It’s psychological, it’s sociological, it’s theological, and it’s philosophical” (“The Age of Disclosure”). Democratic Congressman Andre Carson elaborates on Elizondo’s terrifying words, stating: “It’s undermining in many ways. It’s troubling to a lot of people to say that there’s something else either otherworld [or] interdimensional. I think, unfortunately, it goes against our traditions, our cultural traditions, our religious traditions, and it challenges the beliefs of a lot of people” (ibid). For Carson, revelations of “otherworldly” or “interdimensional” creatures have the potential to destroy or dramatical reshape everything that undergirds human civilization. Carson tells the audience that disclosure of an alien reality “would be a shakeup for institutions. It’d be a shakeup for norms. It’d be a shakeup in society” (ibid).
It is a tired old line that people have had preached at them countless times before: the time-honored beliefs upon which man has built his civilization would be violently disintegrated if alien life was ever discovered. What very few people realize, however, is that it is powerful and well-connected actors on the world stage who are using that worn out line on the public. Carson and Elizondo, for instance, preach this evangel in The Age of Disclosure while failing to mention the problematic and murky intelligence ties of the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity to which they belong. Those ties were documented by these authors in previous installments of this series. The AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity, however, seems to be echoing the sentiments of yet another entity with deep connections: the Brookings Institute, a globalist think-tank.
In a 1960 study paper prepared for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) entitled, “Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs,” the Brookings Institute suggests that contact with an extraterrestrial civilization could lead to the dismantling of earth’s current societal model, an event that would most certainly lead to a radical change in human value systems and religions (Michael 215). The paper asserts that such alarming speculation is supported by anthropological data (215). The report states:
“Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they have had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior. (215)
In addition to suggesting that extraterrestrial contact might bring an end to traditional society, the report asserts that another possible outcome of such a hypothetical scenario is the realization of the globalist vision of world unification. The report’s author, Donald N. Michael, writes:
“The knowledge that life existed in other parts of the universe might lead to a greater unity of men on earth, based on the ‘oneness’ of man or on the age-old assumption that any stranger is threatening. Much would depend on what, if anything, was communicated between man and the other beings…. (215)
The “greater unity of men” imagined by the Brookings report may be a world government, euphemistically described by one former Brookings Institution president as a “global nation” (Talbott 70).
Writing in 1992, former Brookings Institution president Strobe Talbott predicted that a global nation will become a reality “within the next hundred years” and that “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority” (70). According to Talbott, there are several problems on the world stage that can only be solved by the collective action provided by a world government. Among those problems are “the spread of terrorism, drug trafficking, AIDS and environmental degradation” (71). To his credit, Talbott admits that globalization has contributed to the rise of these problems (71). He then, however, returns to his role as world government apologist, asserting that these “threats are more than any one nation can cope with on its own, they constitute an incentive for international cooperation” (71).
When one studies the 1960 Brookings Institution report, one cannot help but wonder if elitist circles also consider an alien contact scenario to be “an incentive for international cooperation.” Readers should also recall that world government was the result of the alien invasion psyop that appears in suspected deep state actor Bernard Newman’s The Flying Saucer, a 1948 literary work that was extensively examined in the fourth installment of this series.
The unavoidable overlap between attempts to undermine traditional religious faiths and the globalist vision of a world government is not at all surprising. A universal republic driven by the desire to apotheosize man is the aspiration of Luciferians, New Agers, Rosicrucians, pernicious strains of Freemasonry, and adherents to other questionable and inverted forms of religion and spirituality. Such a concept, however, does not represent the deepest longings of most adherents to one of the three Abrahamic faiths.
Christians, especially those practicing in the more Apostolic communions, are a particularly bothersome obstacle for globalist circles. After all, such Christians prioritize God’s Kingdom over any grandiose human one, and adamantly oppose any universal structure that does not claim Christ as its center. For the globalists and their fellow travelers, any world order worth realizing can only come about if there is a changing or wasting away of the Apostolic forms of the Christian faith and uncooperative strains of the other two Abrahamic faiths. That is where doctrinal warfare enters the picture.
Doctrinal warfare is a term unfamiliar to most people.
What exactly is it?
It is the tool of a soldier who eschews the traditional battleground. Instead of attacking opposing armies, the soldier who wields doctrinal warfare attacks the enemy’s ideology. For such an unconventional soldier, victory is found in changing his/her competitor’s core beliefs. Guns, tanks, and planes do not erode an adversary’s belief system. A gradual, subtle, and systematic undermining of an enemy’s theology and philosophy, on the other hand, eventually brings the desired shift in what the enemy espouses as his/her deepest convictions.
It’s not hard to see why such a peculiar form of warfare would appeal to the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity and other shadowy participants in UFO deception. Practitioners of doctrinal warfare may be able to convince people of faith to run up the white flag of capitulation without a single shot being fired, and the puppeteers behind the UFO lie have always sought to seize minds and hearts without a struggle.
Doctrinal warfare was initially employed in the United States to advance one of the worst manifestations of Americanism. This particular manifestation of Americanism was a major factor in America’s migration away from representative government to an imperial project. Doctrinal warfare included “plans to infiltrate the religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam all to further the message that America is good and consistent with the principles of the various religions” (Wemhoff 25). This would cause the various religions to subordinate their core spiritual messages to a doctrine that held “that America was good, if not ideal, and that American ideas on socio-political-economic matters and organization were right” (25).
According to author David Wemhoff, the doctrinal warfare program adopted by the American oligarchy was “designed to make America, with its unique Enlightenment and Liberal grounding, appear as ideal in the minds of peoples around the globe” (26). The globalist character of such a notion is obvious. If American principles, as they were defined by the nation’s oligarchy, were ideal, then they must be universalized.
Doctrinal warfare reduced the various religions to little more than evangelists for an American Empire that was ushering in a New World Order. It is truly strange that the religions of the world would be used to promote a system of world management that had the Enlightenment as its philosophical foundation. Even in its mildest manifestation, the Enlightenment was no friend of religion or traditional spirituality. By promoting a system inspired by the Enlightenment, the world religions were advancing the cause of their greatest adversaries. Nonetheless, this is exactly what doctrinal warfare accomplished in the realm of religion. Doctrinal warfare made religions beggars to their own demise.
It would be wrong to think that doctrinal warfare is merely the product of a paranoid imagination. One can find a paper addressing “The Use of Doctrinal Warfare in a Political, Non-military Attack against the USSR” at the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) online reading room (“The Use of Doctrinal Warfare in a Political, Non-Military Attack against the USSR: A Theory Outlined and Developed by [redacted] before a CIA Audience on 20 October 1952”). The document was used to present the doctrinal warfare theory to a CIA audience on October 20, 1952 (ibid).
The memorandum notes that the communists are familiar with the concept, although they “call it ‘propaganda’ – written indoctrination – as compared with ‘agitation’ or oral proseletyzing [sic]” (ibid). The document defines doctrinal warfare as “an attack through the medium of ideas on the motivation of a given target, which seeks to reorient the target’s will in a selected direction” (ibid). The communists, according to the memorandum, have not shied away from the weaponization of ideas, so America must develop an appreciation for such means and methods. The paper states:
“The well-known American impatience with ideas per se, not to speak of “systems” of ideas, and our reluctance to read books are not shared by the elite of other countries. On the contrary, it is both unrealistic and perhaps even dangerous to underestimate the force that ideas frequently possess elsewhere in the world and which the Communists have learned so well to exploit. (ibid)
The document points out that there are “many historical precedents” for doctrinal warfare (ibid). Those precedents include “the Koran, the doctrines built up prior to and during the French revolution, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Mein Kampf and a host of other examples” (ibid). All of these precedents possess spiritual and religious elements. The Koran, of course, is a religious text. Whole volumes have been written on the “revolutionary faith” that drove the French Revolution.
An examination of Harriett Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin reveals how that anti-slavery novel was “thoroughly grounded in evangelical religion” (Hill). Finally, the fact that Mein Kampf’s author, Adolf Hitler, was influenced by a number of occult movements in Germany and elsewhere is now a matter of public record. Doctrinal warfare, therefore, views spirituality and religion as things that must be co-opted and weaponized.
The memorandum also sets the stage for all faiths to be colonized by the practitioner of doctrinal warfare. The paper flatly states: “Doctrinal warfare must be waged globally” (“The Use of Doctrinal Warfare in a Political, Non-Military Attack against the USSR: A Theory Outlined and Developed by [redacted] before a CIA Audience on 20 October 1952”).
How is this to be done unless all of the world’s religions are captured and tamed? That appears to be what the author of the CIA document had in mind.
The intersection between UFO deception and doctrinal warfare lies with a Russian-born CIA official, an American theologian, and an effort to get June 17 designated as something of an anti-communist holiday. The CIA official was Nicholas de Rochefort, a curious character who has been described as “a Russian immigrant who, among other jobs, wrote scripts in French and Russian for the Voice of America” (Fawcett and Greenwood 206).
In addition to providing content to the Voice of America (VOA), de Rochefort was employed by the CIA’s Psychological Warfare Staff (206). De Rochefort’s resume seems to indicate that the man was adept at influencing public opinion. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by UFO researcher Jack Brewer include notes on an interview conducted with Theodore Repplier, president of the Advertising Council and one of de Rochefort’s former employers (“Nicholas de Rochefort FBI”).
According to the FBI files, Repplier described de Rochefort as “a good propagandist, particularly valuable in projects designed to counter Communist propaganda” (ibid). Repplier knew this because de Rochefort “was engaged in such a project while employed by the Council” (ibid). There is a very strong possibility that de Rochefort employed his propaganda talents in the realm of Ufology.
Richard Hall, a now deceased UFO researcher and member of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), identified de Rochefort as one of two NICAP organizers with “past CIA connections” (Hall). In addition to being one of NICAP’s founders, de Rochefort held a high position in the UFO investigatory body. De Rochefort served as NICAP’s Vice-Chairman (Fawcett and Greenwood 206).
On Thursday, July 29, 1954, Charles J. Kersten, the U.S. representative from Wisconsin, praised de Rochefort for his involvement in a successful effort to declare June 17 Freedom Day in Berlin, New Hampshire (Proceedings and Debates of the 83rd Congress Second Session 12642). Kersten’s kind words for de Rochefort were made during remarks in the House of Representatives. Freedom Day, Kersten explained, was “the commemoration of the anniversary of the revolt of East Berlin German workers and of the Poles and Czechs against communism in June 1953” (12642).
He then made the following curious statement: “This commemoration is an example of what is possible to achieve in the field of unconventional psychological warfare against communism through imagination and private initiative” (12642). Kersten was boldly admitting that the celebration was a psychological warfare operation.
According to Kersten, de Rochefort was the author of this operation (12642). De Rochefort, said Kersten, “conceived of the plan” as a way “to bolster resistance to communism behind the Iron Curtain by a demonstration of the solidarity of the Free World” (12642). Dr. Charles W. Lowry, the chairman of the Foundation for Religious Action, was also involved in the Freedom Day plan (12642). Kersten described Lowry as “another vigorous fighter against communism” who “understood the importance of his [de Rochefort’s] idea, and sharing in his enthusiasm, helped De Rochefort in carrying it out” (12642).
Lowry’s Foundation for Religious Action has been called “a willing supporter of the U.S. Government’s efforts abroad in the area of ideological warfare and co-option of the religions” (Wemhoff 30).
In 1954, Lowry was involved in a psychological operation that grew out of a recommendation made by then-Vice President Richard Nixon to Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith (443).
In a letter to Smith, Nixon “recommended religious-based psy ops as the most effective antidote to the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia” (443). Nixon also stated that “Dr. Lowry and the OCB staff can work out the details” (443). The OCB that Nixon referred to was the Operation Coordinating Board (306). The OPC was considered the successor to the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) (306). The PSB has been described as “the U.S. Government’s agency responsible for coordinating psychological operations and doctrinal warfare” (25).
In addition to participating in doctrinal warfare, the PSB appears to have played a significant role in UFO-based manipulation.
In 1952, then-CIA director General Walter Bedell Smith sent a letter to the Director of the PSB, calling on the board to discuss “the possible offensive and defensive utilization” of the UFO phenomenon “for psychological warfare purposes” (Huyghe). This was the same Smith to whom Nixon would float the concept of “religious-based psy ops” just two years later.
Why is this significant?
Because it demonstrates that many of the same actors shaping doctrinal warfare were also involved in UFO deception. This overlap, at least to the authors of this series, suggests a melding of the two concepts. The cooperation between de Rochefort and Lowry also supports the assertion that a wedding between doctrinal warfare and UFO deception took place.
In the collaboration between de Rochefort and Lowry, one can see the forces behind both doctrinal warfare and UFO deception starting to come together, perhaps recognizing the complementarity of their skills and goals.
Lowry, the PSB, and the OCB engaged in extensive doctrinal warfare operations that shaped and perfected many strategies, tactics, practices, and techniques that would also emerge in the realm of UFO-based manipulation, again suggesting that the two were becoming one. Wemhoff states that the PSB and OCB “acquired an enormous amount of power and influence in conducting and coordinating psychological operations, the heart of which was doctrinal warfare when it assumed control over the doctrinal operations of the CIA” (306).
That power and influence was exerted in Southeast Asia, where Lowry launched a plan that called for nothing less than the transformation of Buddhism into an appendage of the American Empire. Lowry’s plan appeared in two memoranda that received Nixon’s endorsement (443). The two papers revealed a doctrinal operation energized by pathological anti-communism. Wemhoff provides a summary of Lowry’s papers:
“Lowry’s two memoranda, “Proposal to OCB by Foundation for Religious Action” and “Spiritual Counteroffensive” presented a mutually reinforcing strategy. The use of “indigenous religious groups” in Southeast Asia “could lessen the Communist influence in Southeast Asia,” he argued. These religious groups would “intensify local anti-communism,” but activities in this field should be started “as a private effort and not as an official government undertaking.” Buddhist leaders would be “urged to attend regional conferences on their common problems, needs and opportunities,” all while soliciting from the “local religious leaders” what they “think should be done and how they would prefer to do it.” (443)
Lowry’s strategy for Southeast Asia became the source of inspiration for efforts to colonize Catholicism (444). Those efforts were carried out by OCB (444). The very same deleterious form of anti-communism that drove the doctrinal operation in Southeast Asia animated the conquest of Catholicism. Wemhoff elaborates:
“After an initial survey, the OSB took a similar approach toward the Catholics. Private organizations were to lead the effort, and Lowry emphasized that each activity “must be developed in the area itself as contacts are made.” Government policy was not directly involved, though the “OCB can find ways to insure” the continuation of a program to develop “potent anti-communist force[s].” Lowry requested that the OCB authorize a grant of money to the Foundation for Religious Action to commence and conduct this work “in the same way as its member agencies assist such enterprises as Radio Free Europe, the American Committee for the Liberation from Bolshevism, and other enterprises located in the United States.” (444)
The obsessive form of anti-communism driving the efforts to subvert both Buddhism and Catholicism is quite significant. It is one of a legion of examples of how Cold War paranoia was harnessed by covert political circles to engage in questionable, if not downright immoral, activities. That same Cold War climate of extreme fear was also tapped in the service of UFO deception.
The “long, twilight struggle,” as Kennedy called it, was characterized by group polarization and an irrational fear of a sinister “other” lying in wait just outside of the “Free World” fold. That “other” could shift between several different masks, including both communist and extraterrestrial ones. The ability of the “other” to don many disguises almost certainly contributed to the fusing of doctrinal warfare and UFO-based manipulation.
If Cold War anxiety had ever eased, the “other” may have evaporated like a morning fog. That, however, never happened. The leaders in both the East and the West were a complex blend of those who had consumed the Cold War Cool-Aid and those who sought to use that same Cool-Aid to control the masses. Both the unwilling and the unable were steering the Cold War ship, so the common people found themselves plagued with both communist and alien bogeymen for a very long season of animosity and fear.
In November of 1989, the communist bogeyman heard the Berlin Wall crashing to the ground and decided to depart. The alien bogeyman, however, remained.
Lowry’s and de Rochefort’s successful effort to launch Freedom Day prompted Kersten to make the following suggestion before the House of Representatives:
“A lesson can be drawn from this experience.
Two men of small financial means, but armed with imagination, perseverance, and knowledge of methods and techniques of psychological warfare were able to plan and carry out an operation of this nature, in finding assistance and aid from the part of the American people.
Such projects as this, staged in America, implemented by American citizens and groups of citizens, can better be worked out, prepared and initiated by private initiative than by the Government.
It would therefore be desirable to create a private organization for this very purpose, the members of which could devote all their time and their skill to devising actions of unconventional psychological warfare, inspire and coordinate them. It would not require millions of dollars; relatively modest sums would suffice.”(Proceedings and Debates of the 83rd Congress Second Session 12642)
Kersten’s curious statement may have played a role in the formation of NICAP. Was NICAP formed in response to Kersten’s call “to create a private organization” for the purpose of “psychological warfare?” NICAP’s founding took place a little more than two years after Kersten spoke to the House of Representatives (Brewer, “FBI Report: NICAP Organizer ‘Good Propagandist’”). Researcher Jack Brewer writes:
“Coincidentally or otherwise, NICAP was incorporated by de Rochefort and others some 27 months later” (ibid).
NICAP folded sometime in the eighties, but its portrait as a collection of objective scientists who relied on rational thinking and empirical evidence endured long after its dissolution. There are still those in Ufological circles who speak of NICAP with a great deal of honor and respect. Public images, however, seldom ever capture the reality of things. They are usually either half-truths or complete lies. There can be no doubt that NICAP did have its share of no-nonsense investigators who only went where the facts led them. That being said, problematic and suspicious characters plagued the organization from its very founding. NICAP’s intelligence connections, CIA in particular, were looked at in this article and in the second installment of this series.
Among the NICAP revelations shared in the second installment was the fact that former Marine Air Corp Major Donald Keyhoe’s ouster as NICAP director was the result of a palace intrigue that involved a former CIA official. It would be easy to classify Keyhoe as a victim, but his story is a little more complicated than that. A March 8, 1958 interview with Keyhoe, for instance, raises some suspicion. During the interview, renowned television journalist Mike Wallace asks Keyhoe why he believes the United States government is withholding UFO information from the public (“Interview with Major Donald E. Keyhoe”).
In response, Keyhoe claims that the answers to that question were given to him “back in ’52 and ‘53” when he was working on the UFO question with the government (ibid). He then states that the government was “afraid that it [the UFO topic] would upset organized religion, that was a smaller factor, but there was some fear of it” (ibid).
This, of course, is the same trope used by the globalist Brookings Institute, the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity, and scores of other participants in UFO manipulation. The only real difference is that Keyhoe presents the threat to organized religion as “a smaller factor,” while Brookings, the AAWSAP/AATIP crowd, and other agents of deception assert that it is a major factor. All these suspicious parties, however, seem to want the public to believe that the government is covering up the truth about UFOs because it will somehow undermine religious faith. Keyhoe, who passed away in 1988 after several decades of feeding the UFO craze, was no exception.
Keyhoe’s own organization, NICAP, may have even engaged in operations meant to make the trope gain significant traction with the public. These operations involved dark and menacing characters that loom large in UFO lore: the dreaded Men in Black (MIB). During an interview conducted by deceased researcher Jim Keith, UFO journalist Jim Moseley of Saucer Smear fame, “offered the interesting suggestion that NICAP itself may have been the source of some MIB incidents” (113). Moseley explained:
“I think the MIB stuff was a combination of many things. One which is little known is NICAP was in Washington, D.C. and it sounds very officially governmental to people who don’t know anything about it. No doubt it was intended to be. I think in some cases, in fact some are provable, people would go from NICAP with the I.D. and either deliberately or accidentally impress the sighters with the fact that they were with the government, and those people considered themselves hushed up by the government… They would say, ‘Don’t talk to anyone but us about this,’ because they wanted the exclusive.” (113)
Would NICAP personnel really impersonate sinister government agents dressed in all black just to avoid being scooped by other organizations? The extensive involvement of CIA officials in NICAP places any manufactured MIB incidents in a different and darker context. The MIB incidents may have been carried out by deep state actors inside NICAP to convince people that the government was trying to conceal the truth about UFOs from the public. If so, then MIB incidents orchestrated by NICAP are a prime example of what researcher Charles Upton has called the “Government Coverup Ploy.” Regarding this ploy, Upton writes:
“Among the more common mind-control techniques, useful to anyone who wishes to use it and can command sufficient attention via the media or the internet, is the Government Coverup Ploy: if you assert that a given fact is true but that the government is covering it up, a certain percentage of the public will automatically believe you – especially if you can pressure the government to the point where it will start issuing denials. It’s a cheap and reliable tool; even the government itself can use it. (Cracks in the Great Wall: The UFO Phenomenon and Traditional Metaphysics 44-45)
The strategy described above by Upton has been employed innumerable times by more than a few deceivers. MIB incidents seemed to be one of the more common manifestations of the ploy, a fact made obvious by an anecdotal example provided by Upton. Upton writes:
“One of the methods employed in this mass social engineering campaign is illustrated by the following anecdote: Someone admitted to an American Air Force base catches a glimpse of an object resembling a UFO through an open hangar door. As soon as he sees it, the door is closed and he is told “You weren’t supposed to see that.” Then, a few days later, the proverbial “men in black” arrive at his house, threatening reprisals if he tells anyone what he saw. This is a classic manipulation, where an event that might have made little impression on him suddenly, through the use of terror, assumes the status of a dark revelation: “If these people are desperate enough to threaten to harm me or my family if I reveal what I know, THEN WHAT I SAW MUST BE REAL.” (Vectors of the Counter-Initiation: The Course and Destiny of Inverted Spirituality 172; emphasis and italics in original)
What comes after the manufactured “dark revelation” described by Upton? More often than not, the manipulators receive the desired response as an anxious public asks, “Why is the government hiding this?” That’s when the deceivers come forward, masquerading as “whistleblowers,” asserting that the cover-up is in place to prevent organized religion from sustaining catastrophic and irreparable damage. Keyhoe, Brookings, and the AAWSAP/AATIP fraternity have all played that role, attempting to shock people so badly that they become divorced from their faith in God.
Many other shadowy groups and individuals are involved in this insidious spiritual shock therapy, and the evidence seems to indicate that none of them are stopping or slowing down. One of the most incredible spiritual shock therapy sessions emerged in May of 2026, when it was revealed that a “dozen or so pastors and podcasters” had attended a February meeting at a Nashville Airbnb regarding UAP/UFO disclosure (Graham).
According to a May 31, 2026 New York Times article, attendees were asked to placed their phones on airplane mode, refreshments were enjoyed, and, subsequent to all the formalities, “for at least two hours, two mysterious men presented a slide show laying out the evidence, as they saw it, for some kind of extraterrestrial life and the spiritual confusion that coming revelations could sow among Christians” (ibid). The testimony of one attendee, North Carolina Pastor Alan DiDio, may indicate that the presentation had the desired effect. DiDio told the Times, “It was the weirdest meeting I’ve ever been a part of. You’ve never seen that many Pentecostals in a room that quiet” (ibid).
Following the bizarre meeting, departing attendees were hit with yet another wave of spiritual shock as “they began receiving news alerts that confirmed for many of them that something significant was happening. That very day, President Trump had directed his administration to begin releasing files related to extraterrestrial life” (ibid).
Needless to say, questions abound. Who were the men conducting the presentation? New York Times journalist Ruth Graham reports that the mysterious duo “told attendees that they couldn’t share their names or exact professional backgrounds” (ibid).
Who organized this meeting?
Tennessee podcaster Tony Merkel seems to have been responsible for issuing the invitations, but he “declined to share the organizers’ names but said they were “intelligence operators” unaffiliated with the U.S. government” (ibid).
In other words, these two individuals were either agents of a foreign government or operatives from a private intelligence network. Neither possibility engenders a warm sense of trust.
After the meeting, one attendee, non-denominational pastor Mike Signorelli, boldly declared, “We were told plainly: Disclosure is coming, and what follows will shake the faith of many. If pastors don’t start preparing their people now, it will be too late” (Eliyahu).
This forecast, however, seems unconvincing when one considers what has been released so far. The public has been treated to nothing more than the same old grainy, blurry, heavily pixelated footage and pictures that have long plagued the Ufological field. Both skeptics and true believers find themselves having to come back with an inconclusive ruling whenever they review the underwhelming “evidence” that has been released in the misnamed disclosure era. Nobody’s faith should be shaken by the video and photographic slop that has trickled out to the public. The slop, however, does raise some important questions regarding the people who released and publicized it.
A key feature of UFO disinformation efforts is detectable in the available accounts of the Nashville Airbnb meeting: telling people everything while showing them little or nothing. Anticipation is gradually built only to be violently dashed upon very jagged rocks. The anticlimax is cruel, cold, unforgiving, and best described as the psychological equivalent of a mass casualty event. Writer/composer Robert Emenegger knew this better than most. Now deceased, Emenegger was one of two writers who authored the script for UFOs: Past, Present, and Future (also known under the title UFOs: It Has Begun), a documentary film that, according to a November 13, 1974 Observer-Reporter article, was “completed with the help of the Department of Defense and NASA” (“U.S. Admits UFOs Exist”).
The release of the film was preceded by some fanfare, with at least one organization, the Westmoreland County UFO Study Group, boldly declaring “with some measure of smugness recently that the U.S. Government and the scientific community is finally admitting UFOs exist” (ibid).
The documentary was hyped as being part of a “carefully planned program extending over a period of years” that would include the “release of government material” (ibid). That “release of government material” was supposed to take place through several different mediums, including “printed material, as well as national television specials and motion pictures” (ibid). Big promises were made, not unlike the ones that would be made at the Nashville Airbnb meeting 52 years later. Were the 1974 promises kept? If they had been kept, then the world of today, in all likelihood, would be a much different place.
The great disappointment that would become UFOs: Past, Present, and Future found its beginnings in 1972, two years prior to the documentary’s embarrassing release. It was then that Robert Emenegger and his production partner, Allan Sandler, received a request from the Pentagon to assist the Department of Defense (DOD) with a public relations improvement (Pilkington 195).
Emenegger’s and Sandler’s image-building effort would take the form of a film that would “focus on some of the more exotic things going on in the military at the time” (195). While doing research for the film, both Emenegger and Sandler were permitted to see some new developments in the realm of defense that could only be described as amazing. Researcher Mark Pilkington elaborates:
“Emenegger remembers seeing dolphins being trained by the Navy, new developments in atomic fusion, mind-to-computer interfaces, dogs trained in reconnaissance and bomb location. Some of the dogs, Bob recalls, had microchips inserted into their heads – hardly popcorn-munching material.
New technologies such as advanced laser research and 3D holography were also on the menu. Allan Sandler was treated to a particularly impressive holographic demonstration in a screening room with a small stage at one end. The curtains parted and a man walked on to the stage to introduce the Pentagon’s new, state of the art holographic projection technology. All of a sudden, a small bird flew from the wings and landed on the man’s shoulder; he smiled and both of them disappeared. They were the demonstrations. (195-196)
While all of these developments were fascinating, Emenegger and Sandler did not think they would be enough to impress an audience (196). When Emenegger and Sandler made it known that they needed to present something much more remarkable to the public, the Pentagon promised to deliver by giving the duo access to what the military had in the realm of UFOs (196). An invitation to California’s Norton Air Force Base was extended to Emenegger and Sandler, and the two soon found themselves meeting with the base’s Air Force Officer of Special Investigations (AFOSI) head and another security officer named Paul Shartle (196). According to Pilkington, Shartle possessed “AFOSI connections” and was charged with the task of acquiring film for the United States Air Force (USAF) (196).
In addition, the Pentagon facilitated a meeting between Emenegger and Sandler and two high-ranking Air Force officials (196). The first individual was Colonel George Weinbrenner, the commander of the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (196). Later known as the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the FTD is described by Pilkington as “the Air Force’s hub for any technology that isn’t theirs” (196). The second individual was Colonel William Coleman, the Air Force’s Chief Information Officer and former liaison officer for Project Blue Book, a famous USAF study of UFOs that began in 1952 and ended in 1970 (196). The meetings between important USAF representatives and the filmmaking duo seemed to suggest that the military was very serious about UFO disclosure.
Initially, a spirit of cooperation and openness seemed to shine through on the military’s end of the collaborative effort. Coleman and Weinbrenner appeared to be very forthcoming with assistance, promising Emenegger and Sandler “reams of data, photographs and film footage of UFOs both in our skies and in Outer Space” (197).
The carrot on the stick offered up by the two Air Force colonels also included “evidence of a close-up UFO sighting involving high-ranking CIA officers and, most dramatically of all, footage of an actual ET spacecraft landing at Holloman Air Force Base as recently as 1971” (197). Today, many of the claims offered up by Coleman and Weinbrenner have been repeatedly dissected by the eyes of scrutiny and invite mostly justified incredulity and scorn.
In the seventies, however, all these “revelations” must have seemed like the Holy Grail to Emenegger and Sandler. The Air Force proved to be very helpful in the quest to procure material for the planned documentary. In retrospect, the Air Force was really too helpful. It pulled out all the stops to make sure that Emenegger and Sandler receives certain UFO-related materials. Why was the Air Force so eager to assist the filmmakers in their acquisition of evidence? Looking back, it is now understood that the “evidence” was designed to deceive. None of it could be adequately vetted or substantiated. Attempts at substantiation resulted in runarounds and evidentiary cul-de-sacs that would leave the most tenacious investigator on the verge of sanity-saving capitulation.
Sandler’s attempts to acquire NASA footage of UFOs in space illustrate this point. When Sandler requested the footage from the space agency, he received “their standard rebuff” (Pilkington 197). NASA claimed it had no such material in its possession (197). Sandler refused to accept the space agency’s denials and turned to the Air Force for assistance in his search (197). His USAF contacts “gave him a detailed breakdown of NASA flights on which UFOs had been spotted, the names of the astronauts involved and even the frame numbers of the relevant pieces of footage” (197). Armed with this arsenal, Sandler returned to NASA and received the materials he had been seeking (197). The images, however, could not be described as a “smoking gun.” The photographs and film received “contained nothing more dramatic than indistinct blobs and blurs” (197). For researcher Mark Pilkington, the dubious nature of the material raises suspicion.
He writes: “Why the Air Force went to such great lengths to provide the film makers with such ambiguous material is just one of the many questions surrounding the affair” (198).
Perhaps the dissemination of such unconvincing disinformation betrays the low opinion that those behind the UFO deception have for their targets. The disinformation agents may feel no need to manufacture elaborate or airtight lies because they consider UFO believers to be an extremely gullible lot. Unfortunately, there are solid grounds for holding such an opinion.
The lies, deception, and disinformation surrounding Emenegger’s and Sandler’s film project reach its culmination with the USAF’s failure to deliver footage of the alleged Holloman UFO landing. Air Force archivist Paul Shartle had described the footage to Emenegger, which sounded like something straight out of an early science fiction movie (200).
According to Shartle, the film showed an Air Force commander, two officers, and two Air Force scientists meeting with extraterrestrials as they emerged from their craft (200). The aliens, said Shartle, wore jump suits and “headpieces that resemble rows of a rope-like design” (200). The extraterrestrials also possessed an “odd blue-grey complexion,” “eyes set far apart” and “large pronounced” noses (200). After the encounter at the landing site, the USAF representatives and the alien emissaries supposedly retreated to an office at Holloman’s King 1 area (200).
If the USAF had made good on their promise to release the footage to Emenegger and Sandler, UFOs: Past, Present, and Future would have been transformed “from a UFO documentary into a historical event” (201). This, however, was never to be. The promise of disclosure was extended and then abruptly retracted. Pilkington writes: “The film never materialized” (201). Seeking answers, Emenegger turned to Colonel Coleman and Colonel Weinbrenner (201).
The two Air Force officials attributed the abortive delivery to the political climate at the time, citing everything from Watergate to the introduction of the Soviet MIG 25 (201). Empty-handed and extremely disillusioned, Emenegger and Sandler sought some kind of viable alternative to the original production plan, but the only suggestion offered up by the military was “to present the incident as something that might happen in the future” (201; italics in original).
The filmmakers’ final product “included some footage showing an indistinct object descending on to what may or may not be the runway at Holloman” (201). According to Pilkington, this strange footage was placed in the documentary as “consolation” (201). Emenegger asserted that footage was merely an experimental craft that his cameraman had an opportunity to film as it landed at Holloman (201). Sandler and Emenegger also compensated for the lack of genuine landing footage with an artistic depiction of Shartle’s Holloman account (201).
For some in the UFO community, the Holloman landing case is interpreted as a failed attempt at disclosure. In other words, genuine UFO revelations were going to be released, and then some element of the government dedicated to secrecy and concealment seized control of the situation and pulled back the hand that feeds. Pilkington, however, suggests a different motive behind the failed delivery of the Holloman film. He writes: “So did the footage ever exist or was it only ever a ‘dangle,’ a lure to convince the film-makers that their ‘documentary’ was going to be something more than just a false advertisement for UFO reality” (201)?
[For an absurd 15 minute overview of the Holloman myth and the creation of the film ‘UFOs: It has Begun’ this 3D animation is for you:]
Everything about the Holloman landing story seems to suggest that it is the figurative worm on the fishing hook that catches gullible nektonic life forms. No one likes to be told that they are comparable to a fish biting at bait. Alas, people who believed that UFOs: Past, Present, and Future would actually answer their most nagging questions regarding UFOs fell into that category.
The most important aspect of the UFOs: Past, Present, and Future train wreck is not the bang that fizzled out into a pathetic whimper. Traces of doctrinal warfare are detectable in the film. At one point in the film, alleged historical support for extraterrestrial visitation is presented in dramatic fashion (”UFO’s – It Has Begun. 1974. One of the best UFO documentaries from the early days”).
Acclaimed actor Burgess Meredith appeared in this portion of the film, reading from first chapter of the Biblical Book of Ezekiel (ibid). The first chapter of that Biblical text deals with the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of the Throne of God, which is accompanied by “four living creatures” that provides support to God’s seat of power (Ezekiel 1:1-28). What is being suggested in not-so-subtle fashion is that Ezekiel saw extraterrestrials and misinterpreted them as the Biblical God and His heavenly entourage.
This an intentional distortion of the vision given to Ezekiel which, according to Charles Upton, “was not a sensual vision of meaningless and deliberately paradoxical aerial acrobatics produced by the Jinn [otherworldly creatures appearing in Arabian myths and the Islamic Quran], but an intellectual vision of God’s creative power manifesting in, and as, the universe” (Cracks in the Great Wall: UFOs and Traditional Metaphysics 77; italics in original).
Ezekiel’s encounter with God was of an intellectual and spiritual nature. While UFOs: Past, Present, and Future transplants Ezekiel’s experience in the realm of the five senses, all physical aspects of the experience, if there were any at all, were merely the results of what first occurred on the intellectual and spiritual levels. Upton writes: “If the throne appeared to [Ezekiel’s] eyes, it was only because the meaning of the Throne had already dawned upon his heart (77; italics in original)”.
By reinterpreting a theophany as a demonstration of extraterrestrial technology, UFOs: Past, Present, and Future displaces the God of the Abrahamic faiths and fills the void with morally problematic aliens that are not worthy of anything close to reverence or worship. Where did this strange and blasphemous idea come from? The source of inspiration for this notion is most likely Swiss author Erich von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past, a UFO book that made its American debut in 1969.
In that curious book, Von Daniken focuses in on the “wheel within a wheel” described by Ezekiel, stating that this feature indicates that what the Old Testament Prophet saw “was one of those special vehicles the Americans use in the desert and swampy terrain” (38). Von Daniken also asserts that the wheels, which rose with the living creatures when they left the ground, operated like “the wheels of a multipurpose vehicle, say an amphibious helicopter” (38). Such a device, of course, would be not be omnipresent like the Biblical God. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when von Daniken writes:
“Ezekiel gives precise details of the landing of this vehicle. He describes a craft that comes from the north, emitting rays and gleaming and raising a gigantic cloud of desert sand. Now the God of the Old Testament was supposed to be omnipotent. Then why does this almighty God have to come hurtling up from a particular direction? Cannot he be anywhere he wants without all this noise and fuss? (38)
The symbolism and pictorial shorthand that appears in the Bible’s prophetic sections does not factor into von Daniken’s interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision. Throughout Sacred Scripture, the north appears as a symbol of “divine presence and power” and is “often associated with judgment and calamity” (”North”). None of these theological realities seem to matter to von Daniken. For him, the text is describing some kind of extraterrestrial helicopter approaching Ezekiel from the literal north. The Swiss author wraps up with the following question: “Who spoke to Ezekiel? What sort of beings were they?” Von Daniken, of course, is speaking rhetorically. For him, Ezekiel’s vision is a UFO incident that a primitive Old Testament prophet mistook for God.
The anti-Christian variety of Ufology promoted by von Daniken may not have been formed in a vacuum. It is interesting to note that the manuscript for what would become Chariot of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past first caught the eye of Econ Verlag, a Dusseldorf-based publishing company founded and directed by Erwin Barth von Wehrenalp, a man who, according to the Pittsburgh Review of Books, “had a Nazi past” (Hamlin). That Nazi past included “writing for various Nazi publications” (ibid).
At one point, von Wehrenalp was even selected to be editor-in-chief of Nortland, the SS publishing house, “though the appointment fell through” (ibid). Econ Verlag wanted to publish von Daniken’s work, but “they required a substantial rewrite” (ibid). The task of rewrites fell to one Wilhelm “Utz” Utermann (ibid). Regarding Utermann, Hannibal Hamlin writes:
“Utermann had been a screenwriter and film producer in the 50s and 60s, but in the 30s and 40s he had been an ardent Nazi. He edited the Party paper, the Völkischer Beobachter, and enthusiastically celebrated Hitler and promoted Nazi ideals in several other books. Like many run-of-the-mill Nazis, Utermann fell below the radar of the Nuremberg Trials, and moved into the German film industry.” (ibid; italics in original)
Working under the pseudonym Wilhelm Roggersdorf, Utermann took to making significant revisions to von Daniken’s manuscript (ibid). The end result appears to have been a literary work heavily influenced by Nazi ideology. A Nazi presence can even be felt in the book’s introduction, which includes a dedication to one-time SS Sturmbahnfuhrer and head of the Nazi rocket program Wernher von Braun (ibid). The book’s obsession with ancient alien astronauts and its anti-Christian tone are the strongest indicators that the book was significantly shaped by Nazi ideology.
The alien astronaut theories entertained by Chariot of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past have always been important to Nazis of both the old and new guard. The anti-Christian themes found in von Daniken’s work also mirror Hitler’s revulsion for Christianity. No less a Nazi stalwart than Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda chief, noted the Fuhrer’s rabid hatred of Christianity. On December 29, 1939, the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda wrote:
“The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.” (77)
None of the Nazi elements in von Daniken’s work prevented his outrageous interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision from making its way into UFOs: Past, Present, and Future. At this juncture, an important question rears its head: who was responsible for the inclusion of von Daniken’s heretical interpretation of Ezekiel in the film?
Should blame be placed at the feet of Emenegger and his coauthor, Carol Johnsen?
DoD and NASA involvement in the project suggests other culprits, ones that inhabit America’s deep state. Emenegger and Johnsen were simply writers, not practitioners of doctrinal warfare. They were, in all likelihood, political innocents, completely unaware of the games played in the dark side of government. The same cannot be said with any certainty about the government circles that assisted Sandler, Emenegger, Johnsen, and the rest of the documentary’s production crew. Most likely, deep state actors within the government saw to it that von Daniken’s dubious material was placed in the film. Those actors, of course, were not hoping to deepen the faith of Christians.
With the 2025 release of The Age of Disclosure and the February, 2026 meeting at the Nashville Airbnb, there was every indication that a redux of the UFOs: Past, Present, and Future debacle was in full swing. It was starting to look a lot like 1974 all over again and no one in the field of Ufology seemed to notice. Ufology newcomers seemed to be unacquainted with case history and the veterans were just flat out amnesiacs. The UFO research community appeared to lack any sense of history, a fact that was breathing new life into a ploy that was five decades old. If Robert Emenegger were still alive, then he would have told the eager UFO community of 2025 and 2026 to beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Emenegger, however, had passed on in 2020, so there was no one on hand to address the amnesia, historical illiteracy, and the sense of déjà vu that hung heavy in the air surrounding 21st century Ufology.
If Ufologists had given little thought to what had transpired in 1974, then Christians from every sect and denomination had given even less. As a matter of fact, it is safe to say that most Christians did not even know about UFOs: Past, Present, and Future or any other UFO show or documentary.
In the case of Christians, the ignorance on the UFO topic is almost understandable. After all, in a life which is centered on faith in and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, wild tales of UFOs and alien visitation are rightly considered to be unwelcome distractions. There are some Christians, however, who have periodically come forward to warn the flock that complete ignorance of the topic is not an option. Deceased Orthodox Priest Father Seraphim Rose, Catholic professor of philosophy and religion Daniel O’Connor, and Christian author Gary Bates are just some of the individuals who have brought attention to the deception surrounding the UFO phenomenon and its relevance to the faithful. That deception element appears to have been at work in February of 2026, when Christian podcasters and pastors descended upon Nashville, completely unprepared to be subjected to what was, in likelihood, UFO-themed doctrinal warfare.
Attendees of the Nashville Airbnb meeting who chose to share some of what they had seen and heard never raised the possibility that manipulation was afoot. None of them appeared to be acquainted with the concept of “bad faith actors.” They seemed determined to believe that the two mystery men presiding over the meeting had nothing but the best of intentions. Emenegger and Sandler probably felt the exact same way when Shartle spun a yarn about humans and aliens meeting face-to-face at Holloman. Both cases are stained by misplaced trust. It is more likely that doctrinal warfare was being employed at the Nashville Airbnb meeting, and the pastors and podcasters in attendance were in the crosshairs.
On June 12, 2026, a new phase in the campaign of UFO-themed doctrinal warfare began, with the degenerate elites of Hollywood and the entertainment industry conducting the assault. It was on that day that famed director and filmmaker Steven Spielberg released Disclosure Day, a 145 minute science fiction thriller that former Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) field investigator Joshua Golembeske claimed was based “off the real events, the real information” (Parks).
The release date was highly suspicious. On June 9, just three days prior to the film’s debut, former Air Force Intelligence officer David Grusch spoke at a press conference held outside the U.S Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and, according to FOX News, “accused intelligence agencies of hiding billions of dollars in secret government spending from Congress to conceal their knowledge of UAPs and diverse alien species” (ibid). Grusch’s dubious ties and background were examined in the very first installment in this series.
Spielberg has a surprising connection to the disclosure deception circles. Spielberg collaborated with Farah on the 2018 sci-fi adventure movie, Ready Player One (Miller). According to a June 5, 2026 Entertainment Weekly article, Spielberg “has seen and enjoyed” Farah’s The Age of Disclosure, “which he credits with sparking broader public interest in disclosure” (ibid). The Entertainment Weekly article also reported that Spielberg believes that The Age of Disclosure paved the way for Disclosure Day by “raising awareness” about the UFO/UAP topic (ibid).
Farah also had praise for Spielberg, stating that acclaimed director’s films sparked his intense interest in UFOs and extraterrestrial life (ibid). In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Farah said:
“Steven Spielberg is the greatest filmmaker of all time. I never would have made The Age of Disclosure if not for the impact his work has had on me. Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. are my two favorite movies, and they influenced and inspired my lifelong interest in this topic at a very young age. Like millions of people around the world, including those running the U.S. government right now, Steven’s movies captivated me and made me curious about big, important questions like ‘are we alone in the universe?’ And ‘has the government kept the truth from the public?'” (ibid)
UFOs seem to be the tie that binds Spielberg and Farah, and now the two are lending their talents to the effort to convince the public that the strange objects occasionally seen in the heavens are occupied by creatures from another world. Farah infects the zeitgeist with his “documentary” work, while Spielberg uses his big budget fiction to achieve the same effect. Both individuals also use their art to engage in doctrinal warfare, with UFOs and god-like aliens playing no small role in that combat. Spielberg’s Disclosure Day is no exception. The film relentlessly attacks the Western religious tradition, with special contempt being displayed for Christianity. The eighth installment of this series will look at Disclosure Day and Spielberg’s role in UFO-themed doctrinal warfare.
Sources Cited
Brewer, Jack. “FBI Report: NICAP Organizer ‘Good Propagandist.’” The UFO Trail 5 March 2020 <https://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2020/03/fbi-report-nicap-organizer-good.html>
Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 83rd Congress, Second Session, Volume 100-Part 9. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1954.
Eliyahu, Shimon. “The Pastors Preparing for Disclosure.” First Fruits of Zion 8 June 2026 <https://ffoz.org/messiah/articles/the-pastors-preparing-for-disclosure>
Graham, Ruth. “In U.F.O. Files, Some Christians See Vexing Questions – and Demons.” New York Times 31 May 2026 <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/31/us/ufo-files-pentagon.html>
Hall, Richard H. “The Quest for the Truth About UFOs: A Personal Perspective on the Role of NICAP.” National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena 1994 <https://www.nicap.org/papers/hall-IUR1994.htm>
Hamlin, Hannibal. “Ancient Aliens, Ancient Lies: The Seductive Pseudoscience of Erich Von Daniken.” Pittsburgh Review of Books 1 April 2026 <https://pghrev.com/ancient-aliens-ancient-lies-the-seductive-pseudoscience-of-erich-von-daniken/>
Hill. Patricia R. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin as a Religious Text.” University of Virginia <https://utc.iath.virginia.edu/interpret/exhibits/hill/hill.html>
Huyghe, Patrick. “UFO Files: The Untold Story.” New York Times 14 October 1979 <https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/14/archives/ufo-files-the-untold-story.html>
“Interview with Major Donald E. Keyhoe.” Harry Ransom Center 8 March 1958 <https://hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15878coll90/id/51/>
Keith, Jim. 1997. Casebook on the Men in Black. Illinois: Adventures Unlimited, 2011.
Michael, Donald N. “Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs.” U.S. Government Printing Office 24 March 1961 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b654309;view=1up;seq=1>
Miller, Mike. “Steven Spielberg credits The Age of Disclosure doc with ‘raising awareness’ for new alien thriller Disclosure Day.” Entertainment Weekly 5 June 2026 <https://ew.com/steven-spielberg-credits-age-of-disclosure-raising-awareness-uaps-disclosure-day-11990712>
“Nicholas de Rochefort FBI.” Keep and Share <https://www.keepandshare.com/doc5/26950/nicholas-de-rochefort-fbi-pdf-1-9-meg?da=y>
Parks, Kristine. “UFO investigator says Spielberg’s ‘Disclosure Day’ captures truth behind whistleblower testimony.” FOX News 16 June 2026 <https://www.foxnews.com/media/ufo-investigator-spielberg-disclosure-day-captures-truth-whistleblower-testimony>
Pilkington, Mark. Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010.
Talbott, Strobe. “The Birth of the Global Nation.” Time Magazine 20 July 1992: 70-71
The Age of Disclosure. Directed by Dan Farah, Farah Films, 2025.
“The Use of Doctrinal Warfare in a Political, Non-Military Attack against the USSR: A Theory Outlined and Developed by [Redacted] before a CIA Audience on 20 October 1952.” Central Intelligence Agency website 31 October 1952 <https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-01065A000200080039-6.pdf>
“Topical Bible: North.” Bible Hub <https://biblehub.com/topical/n/north.htm>
”UFO’s – It Has Begun. 1974. One of the best UFO documentaries from the early days.” YouTube 2 January 2023 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnng3VF-uqw>
Charles Upton. Cracks in the Great Wall: UFOs and Traditional Metaphysics. Hillsdale, New York: Sophia Perennis, 2005.
—. Vectors of the Counter-Initiation: The Course and Destiny of Inverted Spirituality. San Rafael, CA.: Sophia Perennis, 2012.
“US Admits UFOs Exist.” Observer-Reporter 13 November 1974 <https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19741113&id=tvFdAAAAIBAJ&pg=868,2178635&hl=en>
Von Daniken, Erich. 1969. Chariot of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. New York: Bantam Books, 1973.
Wemhoff, David A. John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the CIA’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church. Indiana: Fidelity Press, 2015.