Former CIA Agent Reveals NEW Details About 'The Age of Disclosure'
Interest around the Age of Disclosure documentary has grown steadily since its premiere at South by Southwest, with many viewers anticipating its wider release. Directed by Dan Farah, the film explores modern perspectives on UFOs and UAPs, pulling together insights from a wide variety of contributors during its secretive two-and-a-half-year production.
One notable development involves former CIA agent John Ramirez, whose contributions did not make the final cut. Questions have emerged regarding which details and interviews were left out, and why certain voices were excluded from the documentary’s narrative. The editing process and choices surrounding content inclusion highlight bigger conversations about what is shared with the public and how information about UFOs is released.
Key Takeaways
The Age of Disclosure documentary offers an in-depth look at current UFO and UAP discussions.
Content selection for the documentary has prompted questions about controlled information release.
Additional insights and related resources are available for those wanting to explore these topics further.
Summary of “The Age of Disclosure” UFO Documentary
Led by Dan Farah: Filming and Creative Decisions
Dan Farah served as producer and director for the UFO documentary titled “The Age of Disclosure.” The film’s production process was notably discreet, spanning approximately two and a half years before completion. Farah openly discussed the editing challenges, highlighting that the initial director’s cut reached over four hours, but was ultimately refined to just under two hours to maintain a concise and engaging narrative.
Key facts about the production:
Role
Director
Production Time
Final Runtime
Person / Note
Dan Farah
2.5 years
1 hour 49 min
Note
Oversaw all filmmaking stages
Filmed in secrecy
Condensed from longer cuts
Many interviews and scenes—including contributions from former CIA agent John Ramirez—did not appear in the final cut. Farah has indicated that some removed material may be considered for release as special features or deleted scenes on physical media.
Launch at SXSW: First Public Screening
The world premiere of “The Age of Disclosure” took place at South by Southwest (SXSW) in March. The choice of festival provided a high-profile platform to introduce the film to a broad audience, drawing attention from both UFO enthusiasts and the wider documentary community. Attendees at SXSW were among the first to view the edited 1 hour and 49-minute version, setting the stage for anticipation around its public distribution.
Forthcoming Release and Potential Influence
As of now, an official public release date has not been confirmed. Despite this, the documentary is widely discussed as a potential landmark in the genre. Producers and commentators suggest that “The Age of Disclosure” could serve as a comprehensive reference point for UFO-related documentaries upon its eventual release.
Expectations for broader impact are amplified by talk of deleted scenes and special features that may accompany a physical release, further appealing to dedicated viewers and collectors. The documentary’s title is also noted for its relevance, given ongoing discussions about information release connected to unidentified aerial phenomena.
John Ramirez’s Omission from the Film
What Was Left Out
John Ramirez, a former CIA agent, shared that his entire contribution was cut from the final version of the "Age of Disclosure" UFO documentary. According to Ramirez, his discussions centered on foreign encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and methods that have reportedly been used to try to attract these phenomena, including the possible use of nuclear materials.
Key topics he mentioned included:
Foreign interactions and actual attempts to contact UAP
Techniques such as attempting to lure UAP similar to modern experiments
Speculation about nuclear materials as bait, though his knowledge was from public sources, not classified information
Despite participating in the documentary’s production, none of these conversations were included in the released film.
Possible Reasons for the Editing Choice
There is no official explanation provided for his exclusion, but several potential reasons have been considered:
Narrative Fit: Not all interview segments align with the central focus or narrative, so content may be omitted even if it covers interesting ground.
Supporting Evidence: Content may be removed if it cannot be corroborated by other sources or participants in the documentary.
Length Reduction: The director mentioned significant challenges in reducing the film’s runtime, noting that the original cut was much longer. Many scenes and interviews, not just Ramirez’s, were trimmed or removed entirely to meet time constraints.
Additional Releases: Some removed content may appear later as special features or deleted scenes in extended editions.
Reason
Storyline Consistency
Verifiability
Running Time
Future Releases
Explanation
Content may not fit the documentary’s message
Lack of corroboration from other participants
Strict need to condense the documentary for pacing
Potential for inclusion as bonus or deleted content
Omissions like this are not uncommon in documentary filmmaking, especially when balancing expert testimonies and group coherence. There is a possibility that Ramirez’s content could reappear in extended materials if released.
Key Observations on UFO and UAP Engagements
International Encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
Reports indicate that multiple nations have documented incidents involving Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. These encounters are not limited to passive observations; they may involve direct engagement or investigative efforts by foreign agencies.
Key Points:
Various countries have recorded actual interactions with UAPs.
International cases have sometimes gone beyond observation into attempts to engage or study these phenomena.
The openness and methods of documentation differ between countries.
Country
United States
Other Nations
Type of UAP Interaction
Investigative, Observed
Engagement, Study
Notable Details
Details released to public in phases
Occasional direct interaction reported
Methods for Attracting Anomalous Aerial Objects
Efforts to bring UAPs closer for study have involved specific strategies. There is mention of both technological means and the use of certain materials to invite interaction.
Notable methods discussed include:
Attempting to draw UAPs in, modeled on experimental practices using different forms of technology.
Unofficial sources suggest nuclear materials may act as a lure for anomalous aerial objects, although there is no professional confirmation for this claim.
These concepts remain largely in the realm of open-source discussions and have not been officially verified.
Attraction Method
Use of technological equipment
Nuclear materials
Claimed Effect
Aimed at provoking UAP response
Allegedly draws UAP presence
Source Type
Experimental/tested
Anecdotal/unofficial
Note: These approaches are being explored, but direct evidence or conclusive results have not been established within professional circles.
How the Documentary Was Edited
Initial Full-Length Version
The earliest version of the documentary, created by the director, was much longer than the final product. The original director's cut lasted approximately four and a half hours, making it a significant challenge to refine and shorten.
The edit team worked to reduce the length first to under two hours, eventually reaching a final runtime of around one hour and forty-nine minutes. The process required major decisions on which material to retain and which to remove.
Reasons for Choices Made in Editing
Editing decisions were driven by the need to create a tighter, more coherent story. Segments and interviews, including entire contributions from some participants, were left out if they did not fit the flow or focus of the film.
There are multiple reasons why content is not included in the final cut. Sometimes, statements cannot be supported by additional sources, or the information may diverge from the documentary’s main narrative. These choices are standard in documentary filmmaking and are made to enhance pacing and clarity.
Possibility of Additional or Unreleased Material
Certain scenes and interviews that were not included in the theatrical release may become available in other formats. The director has indicated plans to potentially release deleted scenes and extra content as special features for home or digital releases.
Fans and viewers could see material that did not fit into the main version, such as interviews or detailed discussions, featured in future extended editions or as bonus content. This approach allows for further exploration of topics covered during filming but not presented in the primary release.
Revealing Information vs. Selective Sharing
John Ramirez’s Understanding
John Ramirez explains that what many consider "disclosure" is often actually what he describes as "controlled dissemination." In his view, disclosure means providing the complete picture, including all relevant facts and implications, such as whether advanced technologies have been reverse engineered and operational.
He states that instead, information is shared in a carefully controlled manner. This approach only confirms the reality of certain phenomena, not the full extent or details. Professionals with insider knowledge signal what is believable without revealing everything they know.
Comparison Table: Disclosure vs. Controlled Dissemination
Aspect
Openness
Detail Level
Objective
Example (per Ramirez)
Disclosure
Full
Comprehensive
Reveal everything
Confirming all realities
Controlled Dissemination
Partial
Limited, selected
Prepare public, avoid sudden shock
Sharing what is “believable,” not all facts
Effects on Public Awareness
This method of sharing information means the public is gradually prepared for possible future revelations, rather than encountering all the facts at once. Information is presented in such a way that public belief is made more easily achievable, but full details are not provided.
Ramirez notes that several public figures are repeating what has been said previously, but with different language. In this way, the flow of information is managed, and the audience is given time to adjust, reducing the risk of overwhelming reactions.
Related Resources and Further Information
Links to Additional Interviews and Content:
Key People Featured or Mentioned:
Name
Dan Farah
John Ramirez
Jeff Nutelli
Jake Barber
Role/Association
Director and Producer, Age of Disclosure film
Former CIA officer, participated in documentary
Participant in the documentary
Referenced methods to attract UAP
Notable Topics Discussed:
The process and challenges of editing a documentary, including choices on what content is included or left out.
Possible extended content or deleted scenes that may be released on physical media like DVDs.
Differences between “controlled dissemination” and “full disclosure” in the context of information about UAPs.
The significance of professional testimonies from intelligence officials regarding the credibility of UAP encounters.
If interested in further perspectives or missed content:
Stay alert for potential future releases of extended scenes and interviews, as materials cut during editing might become available in special editions or online updates once the official release date is announced for the documentary.
