Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” and the Debate on Reality

This week, many critics have praised Steven Spielberg’s latest release, “Disclosure Day,” which came out on June 12, labeling it as his best work in two decades. Glenn Beck, on his show, pointed out something that seems more significant than the film itself.

Beck suggested that the crucial storyline isn’t whether Spielberg might be involved in covert psychological maneuvers for the Pentagon. Instead, he emphasized that we’ve entered what he terms the “death of free will.” This refers to a time when our personal devices analyze our fears and biases, creating a unique version of reality for each individual, leading to a scenario where no two Americans can agree on what’s true.

As Beck noted, factions are fixated on what reality they can manage, while algorithms determine the reality before us—both are shades of the same issue.

He’s onto something. I think this is precisely why the discussions surrounding UFO disclosures hold more weight than most realize.

As someone trained as a lawyer and having spent 19 years as a science educator in California, I’ve authored 20 books on government and corporate corruption, though none have touched upon the more fringe topics. Two and a half years ago, I collaborated with documentary filmmaker Michael Mazzola on the book “Devastating Revelation: The Deep State, Aliens, and the Truth.”

I initially approached UFOs with skepticism. It wasn’t the sightings or leaked footage that changed my mind; it was a congressional hearing.

On July 26, 2023, three witnesses testified, including Air Force intelligence officer David Grusch and Navy pilots Ryan Graves and David Flavor. Anyone familiar with how Capitol testimonies work knows that these individuals are thoroughly vetted before speaking under oath.

Grusch shared details about an active military initiative focused on recovering UFO crashes and reverse-engineering them, along with “biological” findings. He claimed his attempts to gain access to this information were blocked. Either he was dishonest, or the government was not being truthful. Naturally, my legal instincts urged me to seek the best evidence available—the earliest testimony before anyone felt the need to obscure the truth.

Let’s discuss the documents involved.

On May 8, the Department of Defense began unveiling what they labeled as “never-before-seen” files concerning unidentified anomalous phenomena as part of a new effort. This first batch included around 162 documents containing accounts from Apollo-era astronauts, military records spanning decades, and reports of pilot encounters in the Persian Gulf and beyond. More information is expected to follow. The Director of National Intelligence mentioned that this marks the start of a continuous effort to declassify and release records.

One document from December 19, 1947, was a letter from the Director of Air Force Intelligence, McCoy, reporting on what was called a “flying saucer.” McCoy noted ongoing reports from credible observers, marking it as a topic of concern.

A subsequent document, dated September 23, 1947, was a blunt assessment by Air Force Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Nathan Twining. He determined that “the phenomena being reported are real and not fanciful or fictitious.” He described disk-shaped objects, roughly the size of manned aircraft with metallic surfaces, performing maneuvers indicative of intelligent control at speeds exceeding 300 knots.

This was the Air Force’s interpretation in 1947. Fast forward to 2026, and it seems our brightest minds still lack reliable answers regarding what military pilots capture on their infrared devices over the Persian Gulf.

Acknowledgment is due: the May 8 release wouldn’t have happened without efforts from the Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), alongside the determination of Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Eric Burleson (R-Missouri). Credit also goes to President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for issuing the directive that made this possible. This represents significant progress and a level of transparency that ideally transcends party lines.

However, it’s only the beginning.

When I embarked on writing my book, my co-author described an ongoing struggle between factions within the national security establishment. Some advocate for “controlled” disclosure—gradual revelations at a pace the public can manage—while others call for “full” disclosure, releasing everything at once. The former group fears triggering what the latter informally describes as a catastrophic exposure, capable of disrupting fundamental societal structures.

I can’t claim to know what this antagonistic faction worries about the public discovering.

This is where Beck’s caution intersects with my narrative. Factions that struggle to dictate the extent of reality the public can handle, combined with algorithms determining what we perceive, are essentially two sides of the same coin. Both deny individuals their right to evaluate evidence and reach personal conclusions.

Beck warns that machines could craft personalized worlds, leading us to believe we’ve made those discoveries ourselves. The remedy isn’t a more refined algorithm. Instead, it lies in a shared, well-documented public record comprised of primary sources and sworn accounts, accessible for all citizens to view and reflect on.

That’s the essence of what disclosure aims to achieve. It’s also what those in the “controlled” camp seem intent on managing.

In an era where truth becomes compartmentalized into countless private feeds, establishing a common truth is invaluable—it might be the cornerstone of our time.

On June 12, Spielberg unveiled “Disclosure Day.” Throughout his career, he has explored themes of contact, from “Close Encounters” to “E.T.” He’s a serious storyteller with substantial sources at his disposal. The pertinent question is whether what he presents aligns with the government’s announcements from May 8, or if it hints at something more substantial still hidden.

My hope leans toward the latter.

Beck raises the question of what’s true. In a nation that values freedom, the response should start with the documentation available.

We, the American people, can handle it. We’ve earned the right to know.