You need to watch this video.

If you’ve even dipped your toe into the world of UFO news lately, you’ve probably heard about the Age of Disclosure, a documentary film that’s been hyped up as a game-changer for so-called UFO disclosure. But as the dust settles around bombshell interviews and viral headlines, the truth about this documentary, Senator Marco Rubio’s involvement, and the tangled web of government advisers and “whistleblowers” is way messier—and far more human—than the filmmakers would like you to believe. Let’s break it all down and see why the real story here is less about aliens and more about how easily hype takes over the truth.

Hype vs. Reality: The Media Frenzy

The Age of Disclosure was marketed as the culminating event in the decades-long push for government openness about UFOs (or UAPs—Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, as the terminology has evolved). It features interviews with current and former government insiders, high-clearance officials, and perhaps most prominently, an interview with Marco Rubio (now Secretary of State and National Security Adviser). Supposedly, these bold voices were finally confirming that the U.S. government has recovered alien craft and is locked in a secret race against nations like China to reverse-engineer non-human technology.

Except… when the fact-checkers and more skeptical voices took a closer look, the picture that emerges is far less explosive. Rubio himself, during a recent Fox News interview, clarified that the quotes spliced into Age of Disclosure were cherry-picked from an interview he did years ago while still in the Senate—and that he was merely repeating allegations from others, not stating personal knowledge. “I was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of in that regard. Little bit of selective editing, but it’s okay... you’re trying to sell a show there.”

The Danger of Selective Editing

Rubio’s comments strike at the heart of what’s wrong with much of UFO discourse today: the repackaging of speculation and hearsay as confirmed, earth-shattering truth. It’s a problem when even seasoned journalists and popular podcasts—notably Joe Rogan and others—parrot these claims without skepticism, creating a feedback loop where allegations become accepted wisdom.

People like Dan Farah, one of the film’s voices and a guest on prominent podcasts, repeatedly referenced Rubio as the high-echelon official confirming a global arms race for alien tech. But in context, Rubio wasn’t actually going that far—he was simply conveying what others had told him, and then hedging with “I don’t know.”

This is more than a minor editing crime. When a documentary uses a respected official’s status to lend gravitas to wild claims, but omits the context that the official had no firsthand knowledge, it undermines public trust—not just in the filmmaker, but in the entire conversation around these mysterious aerial phenomena. At worst, it distracts from the real work of discovery and keeps everyone locked in cycles of hype, disappointment, and conspiracy.

Layers of Confusion: Whistleblowers or Web Spinners?

Dig a bit deeper, and the web becomes even more tangled. Marco Rubio’s interview is just one thread. Behind the scenes, advisers like John Estridge (former National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, now a space-industry executive) move from government committees to the world of whistleblowers and back. Estridge, as revealed in both the documentary and investigative reporting, helped "vet" sources, connect filmmakers to committee members, and is even rumored to be among the shadowy 40 whistleblowers championed by another UFO exposer, David Grusch.

What's more, several claims in the film trace back to individuals with overlapping roles within the government, contracting world, and even the very media stoking these UFO stories. From consultant to confidante to “anonymous source,” the players often switch hats so quickly it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish genuine mystery from manufactured intrigue.

Then there are tantalizing connections with secretive programs like the so-called Immaculate Constellation, the maneuverings at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and whispers of classified breakthroughs feeding the next leap in technology. And yet, when pressed for hard evidence or official, on-the-record statements, we get only speculation, rumor, and “no comment.” If you feel like you’re following a plotline out of an X-Files reboot, you’re not alone.

How The UFO Hype Machine Works

What’s happening here isn’t just unique to the UFO world. It’s a phenomenon that touches every aspect of media in the age of the 10-second clip. Start with a mystery (or, as in Rubio’s case, a string of secondhand reports). Add a dash of selective editing, present it in the gravest of tones, and repeat the claims across social channels, podcasts, and YouTube. Soon enough, the original nuance—"I’m just saying what I was told, I can’t confirm it"—is buried under headlines proclaiming MASSIVE DISCLOSURE IMMINENT.

This isn’t just about UFOs, either. It’s about feeding the public’s longing for the spectacular, the unexplainable—a longing that can override skepticism and critical thinking. With every iteration, the facts get murkier; the lines between whistleblower, grifter, and genuine truth-seeker blur. And the story keeps growing stranger not because reality is so wild, but because so many people are invested—professionally, financially, even personally—in keeping the mystery alive.

Critical Thinking Is Your Friend

After all is said and done, does this mean there’s nothing to UFOs? Not at all. As the narrator admits at the end—speaking for many of us—it’s still possible, even likely, that “something” extraordinary is going on in our skies. There are credible reports, unexplained sightings, and veteran military witnesses who aren’t easily dismissed. But what this latest drama with Age of Disclosure really shows is that disclosure—real, meaningful government acknowledgment—can’t be achieved by cutting corners, pumping up speculation, or letting hype replace honest, sometimes uncomfortable ambiguity.

If there’s a takeaway, it’s this: Be wary of anyone promising certainty where there is only uncertainty. Question narratives that rely on unnamed sources, ambiguous phrasing, and celebrity cameos. Don’t let your curiosity be hijacked by the latest sensational headline or selectively-edited documentary.

In the end, the greatest threat to getting answers about UFOs isn’t a shadowy cabal of gatekeepers—it’s our own willingness to believe what we want to hear, instead of demanding the truth. Stay curious, stay skeptical, and remember: the real story is still out there. But you’ll need more than hype to find it.