The Disclosure/Debunking Schedule

It's a predictable pattern, but what could it mean? A (completely) speculative essay...

Every few years, the UFO discourse breaks the surface of mainstream news.

It could be a new headline, a whistleblower, or a blurry video released (or leaked) with fanfare. Non-believers turn their heads and consider the evidence and the credentials of those making extraordinary claims.

And then — just as predictably — the pendulum swings and there is a public debunking and discrediting and the sudden return of silence.

For people who’ve looked at the history of UFOs in American culture, the cycle — the Disclosure/Debunking schedule — isn’t random but predictable.

We saw this in:

• The Condon Report (1968) – a government-sanctioned study that concluded UAPs were not scientifically interesting, despite internal contradictions.

• Project Blue Book (1952–69) – which archived thousands of cases and then closed with a shrug.

• The 2017 New York Times article revealing the Pentagon’s secret UFO program (AATIP), which reignited mainstream interest but offered no definitive proof.

• 2023 whistleblower testimony — which included claims of recovered craft and nonhuman entities, but lacked publicly available evidence.

Then comes the correction. The debunking isn’t always hostile. It can even be friendly — coming from academics or journalists who genuinely believe they’re restoring “reason” to the conversation.

Often, debunking comes from the very people who are tasked with the public facing “disclosure” of UFOs. Such was the case with J. Allen Hynek (in his early career) in the mid-twentieth century. This schedule is aggravating to people who’ve studied the topic enough to know that, as Eric Davis often says, “there’s a there, there.”

This technique dates back to the post–World War II era, when public interest in “flying saucers” was met with Air Force press conferences and bureaucratic conclusions. Probably, the deeper purpose wasn't to disprove, but to contain or distract, perhaps from something else that enough people knew about, but needed to be kept hidden, for whatever reason.

In my past work on this topic I inadvertently came across people engaged in the study of UFOs who appeared to be “government adjacent.” I used the term “fight club” to refer to the cone of silence I observed within this group, and it appeared to be a pattern. “The truth is told, but within a circus of confusion.” I remember that statement.

The pattern is not obvious as it takes having a long view of the topic. What function does it serve?

The following are just my speculations. The disclosure–debunking cycle might operate as a culturally sanctioned pressure-regulation mechanism. Periodically, when public interest in unidentified aerial phenomena intensifies—often catalyzed by official statements, media coverage, or testimony from credible figures—a measured release of information is permitted. This selective disclosure serves not to resolve the phenomenon, but to temporarily alleviate epistemic and psychological tension within the public sphere.

By offering partial validation, these moments of revelation create the impression of transparency while carefully preserving institutional control. What follows is a reassertion of normative boundaries through debunking, ridicule, or omission. Perhaps this is containment: a system that diffuses pressure while ensuring the structural continuity of uncertainty.

There are other possibilities. There could be a research tradition that utilizes the public show as camouflage. And, sadly, there is the real possibility of government bureaucratic incompetence.