ONE MAJOR ISSUE Plaguing Modern Day UFOlogy...The Contradictory Conundrum
this episode is more visual- if you ant the optimized experience watch on youtube
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/total-disclosure-podcast--5975113/support.
CONTACT TDP DIRECTLY For Collaboration, Use of Segments/clips, or any other media produced by “TDP” —[email protected]
Special Thank you to all of our PODCAST/YouTube Channel Members for your continued support, and dedication to seeking the truth, together. We can’t do this WITHOUT YOU!
-COPYRIGHT-2020-
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Total Disclosure Podcast Copyright 2020 and … segments, early access to interviews, and a yearly gift autographed by yours truly!thank you in advance now, Let's explore the unknown together!
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Total Disclosure, where I and we chase
Speaker 1: the signals, the questions, the shadows, and never take trust
Speaker 1: me at face value. I'm your host, Ty Roberts, and
Speaker 1: on this special presentation, I wanted to clear the air
Speaker 1: on an issue that I've seen very frequently in the
Speaker 1: UFO community. For better or worse, We're diving into a
Speaker 1: story that's equal parts heartbreaking, frustrating, and all too familiar
Speaker 1: in this vast world that we call ufology. Now, this
Speaker 1: problem is much bigger than just the example that I'm
Speaker 1: about to give, the contradiction the same people who demand
Speaker 1: transparency turning around and being as vague as possible, in
Speaker 1: this case, a woman many admire Kelly Chase, the brilliantly
Speaker 1: sharp mind behind the UFO rabbit Hole podcast now rebranded
Speaker 1: as Cosmosis. Kelly's known for her rigorous no bs takes
Speaker 1: on the phenomenon. She's interviewed whistleblowers, dissected declassified docs, and
Speaker 1: called out the grift, which I have tremendous respect for.
Speaker 1: But in the following video you'll see her last episode
Speaker 1: of the UFO rabbit Hole, writing the lack of true
Speaker 1: evidence and a lot of quote unquote stories that make
Speaker 1: up the UFO narrative. Let's take a listen, be.
Speaker 2: Open about what I see, and I leave it to
Speaker 2: you to decide what you think about it. For me,
Speaker 2: the unraveling of the disclosure narrative can be traced back
Speaker 2: to Carl Nell's presentation at the first Soul Foundation Symposium,
Speaker 2: which I attended in November twenty twenty three. There has
Speaker 2: been a lot of conversation centered around Nell's talk. For example,
Speaker 2: much was made of his comments about the potential for
Speaker 2: catastrophic disclosure, which quickly entered the lexicon of the UFO community.
Speaker 2: But what I find remarkable is that as much as
Speaker 2: people give lip service to that presentation, very few of
Speaker 2: those same people seem to have integrated what he said
Speaker 2: into their understanding of the disclosure movement as a whole.
Speaker 2: They took the parts that made for good clickbait or
Speaker 2: that confirmed their desire for sudden, an ambiguous disclosure, and
Speaker 2: generally ignored the rest.
Speaker 1: I think that's a mistake.
Speaker 2: If you aren't familiar with Carl Nell, he's a retired
Speaker 2: Army colonel, aerospace executive, and corporate strategist who has worked
Speaker 2: with organizations like Bell Labs, Lockheed Martin, and a slew
Speaker 2: of other Fortune five hundred companies. In short, he's one
Speaker 2: of the highest profile members of the military intelligence community
Speaker 2: to have stepped forward to weigh in on disclosure and
Speaker 2: in Maamin. His talk at SOUL was one of the
Speaker 2: single most important moments in the conversation thus far and
Speaker 2: offered rare insights into how the intelligence community is approaching
Speaker 2: the topic of UAP transparency. I want to go through
Speaker 2: some of the main points of that presentation and why
Speaker 2: I think there's The disclosures that we've gotten from whistleblowers
Speaker 2: so far have come from known and in most cases
Speaker 2: current members of the intelligence community. Most if not all
Speaker 2: of them still hold high level security clearances and still work,
Speaker 2: whether directly or as contractors for the DoD or for
Speaker 2: aerospace defense companies. In many cases it's both, and the
Speaker 2: information shared with us by those whistleblowers is the information
Speaker 2: that has been approved by the DoD through DOOPSERDOPSER, or
Speaker 2: the Defense Office of Pre Publication and Security Review, is
Speaker 2: the US Department of Defense office responsible for reviewing and
Speaker 2: approving information before it's publicly released to ensure it does
Speaker 2: not compromise national security. So basically they have said only
Speaker 2: what the DoD has said they are allowed to say,
Speaker 2: which is why I don't think that the whistleblowers that
Speaker 2: have come forward thus far represent a threat of catastrophic disclosure.
Speaker 2: It's hard to think of any other cases of whistle
Speaker 2: blowing in either the private or public sector where whistleblowers
Speaker 2: remained in such good standing within the organizations that they
Speaker 2: were blowing the whistle on. So at the very least,
Speaker 2: these are whistleblowers who are more than willing to play
Speaker 2: by the rules. The fact that it's so controversial to
Speaker 2: even acknowledge these basic truths is because the disclosure narrative
Speaker 2: is doing exactly the things that it's supposed to do.
Speaker 2: It's getting people invested in a story and in personalities
Speaker 2: that they want to believe in enough to not just
Speaker 2: overcome cognitive dissonance, but to deputize them to help further
Speaker 2: this narrative. If you want to see how absolute and
Speaker 2: insidious the narrative control is, just try this little experiment.
Speaker 2: Log on to Reddit or x and try posting a
Speaker 2: direct quote about lou Elizondo in his own words from
Speaker 2: his own book, explaining that he was recruited into ASAP
Speaker 2: by James Lukatski to run counter intelligence for the program
Speaker 2: without adding any further commentary, and see how that goes
Speaker 2: for you. It's a fact about Lou that we only
Speaker 2: know because he told us, and yet no one is
Speaker 2: allowed to say it, much less raise any kind of
Speaker 2: legitimate questions about what it might actually mean, because those
Speaker 2: are questions that no one really wants to know the
Speaker 2: answer to. So am I saying that I think all
Speaker 2: whistleblowers are liars who are working within a DoD campaign
Speaker 2: plan for the purpose of controlled disclosure. Not exactly. I
Speaker 2: suspect it's far more complicated than that. It's easy and
Speaker 2: often necessary to talk about entities like the intelligence community
Speaker 2: or the Department of Defense as though they are monoliths,
Speaker 2: but they're clearly not. Over one million people are employed
Speaker 2: by the Department of Defense and over four million people
Speaker 2: hold security clearances. Within those millions, there are countless warring
Speaker 2: factions and all kinds of different objectives. Nothing about what
Speaker 2: is happening is straightforward, and I certainly don't out the
Speaker 2: possibility that there are good faith whistleblowers who are taking
Speaker 2: on considerable risk to do what they think is right.
Speaker 2: In fact, I'd be surprised if that weren't the case.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, I'm no longer willing to
Speaker 2: overlook the glaring evidence that the disclosure narrative, at least
Speaker 2: as it's been presented to the public, is largely a
Speaker 2: fabrication when you look at what's happening objectively, I think
Speaker 2: that's hard to deny, And though I'll admit to experiencing
Speaker 2: a significant amount of disillusion and weathering a long series
Speaker 2: of dark knights of the soul over that realization, I
Speaker 2: ultimately don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I could
Speaker 2: wax poetic for hours about the different ways to read
Speaker 2: this situation, how the tangled web of alliances, agendas, and
Speaker 2: competing interests could explain why things have unfolded the way
Speaker 2: that they have without requiring that everyone involved be a
Speaker 2: mustache twisting villain. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: that's all speculation. The truth is I don't actually know
Speaker 2: what's going on, and neither do you, And that's the point.
Speaker 2: Whatever the disclosure movement is, whatever teams the various experts
Speaker 2: and whistleblowers ultimately play for this is not a game
Speaker 2: that we get to play. We don't even get to
Speaker 2: know the rules. We're just spectators watching a performance where
Speaker 2: we have no way of knowing who's actually pulling the strings.
Speaker 2: And frankly, I wouldn't even want to. I've seen enough
Speaker 2: at this point to know that there are aspects of
Speaker 2: this that are very dark, very disturbing, and absolutely dangerous
Speaker 2: for anyone who wanders too close. I don't believe that
Speaker 2: it's possible to get real answers from these people anyways,
Speaker 2: so why would I bother. To be honest, I'm just
Speaker 2: no longer interested. But that's not to say that I
Speaker 2: don't still believe in certain aspects of this fight. I
Speaker 2: still believe that some form of controlled disclosure, however imperfect,
Speaker 2: probably does some good, at least in terms of moving
Speaker 2: the needle of public acceptance forward toward a broader reality.
Speaker 2: I also still fundamentally believe that holding our government accountable
Speaker 2: for how it spends our money and demanding greater transparency,
Speaker 2: especially on topics that pertain to our understanding of the cosmos,
Speaker 2: is a very worthy cause, even if true transparency is
Speaker 2: something we can only ever approach asymptotically. So you'll probably
Speaker 2: still see me lend my voice and my support to
Speaker 2: that world as it makes sense for me to do
Speaker 2: so if any of them still want to talk to
Speaker 2: me after this episode. But make no mistake, I am
Speaker 2: over disclosure.
Speaker 1: Over disclosure. And while I do agree with many of
Speaker 1: Kelly's points and sentiments, and I think we can all,
Speaker 1: in fact, I know we can all in the UFO
Speaker 1: community relate to what she's saying and the truth that
Speaker 1: she is speaking. But just weeks ago, just weeks ago,
Speaker 1: she drops a bombshell that left the UFO community and
Speaker 1: much many others like me a bit confused. A personal
Speaker 1: shadowy operation attack so traumatic it eclipsed sexual assault, kidnapping,
Speaker 1: losing a parent, all rolled into one, no evidence, no names,
Speaker 1: just her words, which again would be fine and not
Speaker 1: out of the norm. In fact, it's usually what we get. However,
Speaker 1: given who she is and what she just said in
Speaker 1: her last episode while she was rebranding, it was jarring
Speaker 1: the contradiction, and when she tried to unpack it in
Speaker 1: an AMA, the stream cut off right on cue coincidence
Speaker 1: or a techlitch, something straight out of the playbooker she
Speaker 1: herself is warning us about. I really want to stress
Speaker 1: that this is only one example. It's Kelly's story, but
Speaker 1: it's a mirror to the UFO community's biggest blind spot,
Speaker 1: our addiction to unverified trauma and experiences dressed up as truths.
Speaker 1: Why do we demand evidence from the government but swallow
Speaker 1: trust me from our own. Let's unpack this because if
Speaker 1: we're ever going to get real disclosure, whatever that means,
Speaker 1: it starts with owning our own faults contradictions.
Speaker 2: Day and I had just started in the fall of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, something happened, something bad. Jay and I
Speaker 2: had just started production on our docu series Cosmosis UFOs
Speaker 2: and a New Reality, and it felt like there was
Speaker 2: an endless field of possibility laid out in front of us.
Speaker 2: We had something to say, and we had each built
Speaker 2: our own individual platforms to be able to say it.
Speaker 2: We were running on adrenaline inspiration, and we felt like
Speaker 2: we were exactly where we were supposed to be. And then,
Speaker 2: like a thunderbolt out of the sky, it all came
Speaker 2: to a screeching halt. Without ever intending to, we saw
Speaker 2: behind the curtain. We wandered too close to something we
Speaker 2: didn't understand, and we got burned badly. I'm not someone
Speaker 2: who's unfamiliar with trauma. I was the victim of sexual
Speaker 2: violence when I was young. I was kidnapped while traveling
Speaker 2: in Colombia. I held my father's hand while he took
Speaker 2: his last breath decades too soon. What happened was worse
Speaker 2: than all of those things combined.
Speaker 3: It was worse not just because of the severity of
Speaker 3: what had happened, but because it showed me a kind
Speaker 3: of darkness that I didn't know existed. Jay has described
Speaker 3: the world that we found ourselves in in the aftermath
Speaker 3: of those events as kafka esque, and I think that's
Speaker 3: the perfect word.
Speaker 2: If you're unfamiliar. The term kofka esque refers to us.
Speaker 2: But what happened to us was a surprisingly complex operation
Speaker 2: that evolved seemingly a lot of people. It was physical,
Speaker 2: This was something that these weren't threats. There was no threat.
Speaker 2: It would have been nice you've gotten a threat.
Speaker 1: First I give a.
Speaker 2: Girl heads up, like all stop, like just let me know.
Speaker 2: It would have been nice to have gotten threat. And
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of I think it's very fair
Speaker 2: for people to ask, you know, is this something You
Speaker 2: can't just say this because like what if somebody else
Speaker 2: stumbles into the same thing. I will say that what
Speaker 2: happened was.
Speaker 3: So At the top, well it says it's still live,
Speaker 3: and then down here.
Speaker 1: Are you serious? See very different tone from start video
Speaker 1: to finish video. First we're talking about how bad, how gruesome,
Speaker 1: how it was worse than sexual abuse, being kidnapped, and
Speaker 1: losing a parent all in one. And I know we
Speaker 1: all process grieve differently. I understand that we all process
Speaker 1: emotions differently. But I did hold my mother's hand she
Speaker 1: took her last breath, jokingly laugh about it. Oh, just
Speaker 1: send a warning. I would have stopped the rides of
Speaker 1: a skeptical voice. Kelly Chase didn't stumble into ufology. She
Speaker 1: built a platform on skepticism wrapped in curiosity, launching the
Speaker 1: UFO rabbit Hole in twenty twenty one. She turned it
Speaker 1: into a top forty science podcast for the most part,
Speaker 1: scripted beautifully told over one hundred episodes, bending experience her stories,
Speaker 1: historical deep dots, and brutal takedowns of hype. Remember her
Speaker 1: episodes on the secret onion of government secrecy, or her
Speaker 1: keynote at Contact in the Desert on UFO Narrative Wars,
Speaker 1: where she laid bare how intelligence ops weaponized belief itself.
Speaker 1: Kelly wasn't chasing clout. She co founded on Tocolips, produced
Speaker 1: the docuseries Ufo Revolution for twob and even starred in Cosmosis,
Speaker 1: usually a studying exploration of non human intelligence that hits
Speaker 1: streaming in twenty twenty five. Her vibe not non first
Speaker 1: his stories but grounded, rebranded to Cosmosis. Why, in her
Speaker 1: own words from the final rabbit Hole episode, that you
Speaker 1: just heard modern neuthology had become theater, a circus of trust,
Speaker 1: me bro claims, edited clips, loyalty tests and group chats,
Speaker 1: and influencers peddling unfalsifiable lore. She stepped back disclosure narrative
Speaker 1: the Washington whistleblower circuits to focus on the raw human
Speaker 1: side of encounters. Ufology and disclosure aren't the same, she
Speaker 1: posted on February twenty sixth I'm not leaving, just done
Speaker 1: with the personalities and the noise. It was a seemingly
Speaker 1: mic drop moment. Fans cheered, critics even nodded. Kelly was
Speaker 1: positioning herself as the antidote to the echo chamber evidence
Speaker 1: over emotion, patterns over personalities. The bombshell Fall twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three and the Unseen assault. Fast forward to October thirty first,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five Halloween. Fittingly, Kelly drops a video on
Speaker 1: X in her Cosmosis Origins episode. I never thought I'd
Speaker 1: talk about this, but silence sounds like consent. She reveals
Speaker 1: that in Fall twenty twenty three, she and co host
Speaker 1: J Christopher King got too close to the machinery of
Speaker 1: institutional secrecy. What followed well a nefarious UFO disclosure, focused
Speaker 1: intelligence operation, not threats or grooming, physical, and as serious
Speaker 1: as it gets. In a follow up clip shared widely,
Speaker 1: she says it was worse than being sexually assaulted, kidnapped,
Speaker 1: and holding her father's hand as he died combined the
Speaker 1: impact life altering. She backed away from the field. She
Speaker 1: stayed quiet to protect the loved ones and watch people
Speaker 1: assume she still backed things and people. I absolutely don't belief.
Speaker 1: Ufology is mostly distraction, a laser pointer that keeps us
Speaker 1: chasing our tails, chasing the shadows. The phenomenon is alive
Speaker 1: in us, but secrecy manipulates us into distrusting our own eyes.
Speaker 1: That's powerful stuff. It's raw, but here's a rub. There's
Speaker 1: no specifics, no timeline beyond fall twenty twenty three. No
Speaker 1: evidence to suggest that this actually happened, not even a
Speaker 1: redacted email or witness nod other than our co hosts,
Speaker 1: which again is just fine, but given who you are,
Speaker 1: I think a little bit more is warranted. Just her
Speaker 1: voice trembling but resolute, and in a community she once
Speaker 1: roasted for exactly this, The trust me Trava dumps without receipts.
Speaker 1: It landed like a gut bunch what happened to Kelly Chase.
Speaker 1: So then there's the AMA lights out at a critical moment.
Speaker 1: I feel like Kelly almost knew, like the questions were coming.
Speaker 1: On November tenth, she and Jay announced a live AMA
Speaker 1: on the Cosmosis YouTube channel Thursday, November thirteenth, six pm Eastern.
Speaker 1: Ask us anything they posted, thirty percent was going to
Speaker 1: be from Patreon, the rest from socials. They just asked
Speaker 1: that you kept it respectful. Hundreds tuned in, the chat buzzed.
Speaker 1: They fielded queries on Cosmosis experience, their safety, and then
Speaker 1: they got into the attack as they knew they would,
Speaker 1: and right as Kelly dives into details on the question
Speaker 1: everyone wanted answered, stream cuts black silence. Her follow up
Speaker 1: on x Post at midnight November fourteenth, our live stream
Speaker 1: cut off. Everything looked good on our end, which I
Speaker 1: did show you in that video. We're having weird tech
Speaker 1: issues now and we're honestly a little creeped out again,
Speaker 1: leaning in to the idea that someone is tampering with
Speaker 1: her technology. They promised an update in the morning, but
Speaker 1: by the next day she joined a Twitter space hosted
Speaker 1: by Tupa and Red Panda Kuala, elaborating further on the
Speaker 1: nudge into nefarious operation, and it's followed. Listeners called her
Speaker 1: articulate and graceful, but the cutoff lingered like a bad
Speaker 1: omen a techlitch. YouTube's finicky. Sure, riverside all of the
Speaker 1: stream yards. They can all be finicky, but in ufology,
Speaker 1: where every static burst is a sign it fueled the fire,
Speaker 1: come on, I mean, it's it's so over the top.
Speaker 1: Fans rallied, they silenced her, Skeptics rolled their eyes. Convenient
Speaker 1: timing tell yourself leaned into the unease, tying it back
Speaker 1: to her warnings about counterintelligence flooding narratives with chaos, the contradiction,
Speaker 1: and I think why it hits so hard and what
Speaker 1: it says about US trauma. It's not debate club, it's
Speaker 1: a topic for debate. You don't prove violation with a
Speaker 1: Foier request. And in a field riddled with intelligence community,
Speaker 1: adjacent grifters, signal chats, vetting podcasts, loyalty tests, she nailed
Speaker 1: that all in a twenty twenty five spaced out radio clip.
Speaker 1: Her story. It does scream validity. If anyone's ever earned
Speaker 1: our ear, it's her. That's the knife twist. This is
Speaker 1: exactly the trust me style she declared and decried a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, was the reason she was backing
Speaker 1: away the UFO narrative wars. She a viscerated how secrecy
Speaker 1: uses half truce, character hits and unfalse viable claims to
Speaker 1: engineer confusion. Gatekeepers aren't hiding the facts, they're scripting the show.
Speaker 1: Yet here she is post rebrand delivering a claim. And
Speaker 1: it's more theatrical than an X Files cold open. It's
Speaker 1: worse than an assault, a kidnapping, and a parental loss.
Speaker 1: Why compare it to that if not to tuget people's hearts,
Speaker 1: at their emotional core, at their visceral attitudes. It's vivid, unverifiable,
Speaker 1: the AMA cut off. It could just be that it
Speaker 1: was all technical glitch. But till then lean into it,
Speaker 1: you know is going to add fuel to the fire.
Speaker 1: This isn't a Kelly takedown. I want to make that
Speaker 1: very clear. It's a symptom uphologies contradiction once so deep,
Speaker 1: I've been guilty of it. We rage at NASA's no
Speaker 1: evidence dodges, but lapp experience or sagas without a single
Speaker 1: corroborating pixel. Whistleblowers like Grute get congressional seats on testimony alone.
Speaker 1: Influencers block critics for asking show your work it is,
Speaker 1: and it has become an echo chamber fuel a belief
Speaker 1: as battleground where doubt is attacking heroes. As one defender
Speaker 1: tweeted at Kelly in May twenty twenty five, the cost
Speaker 1: credibility erosion when trust me becomes currency, real signals drown
Speaker 1: and noise. Kelly's pivot to phenomenon over politics was brilliant
Speaker 1: until now it pulled her back. It pulled her back.
Speaker 1: In fact, it reminds us even the sharpest voices can
Speaker 1: slip and fall into the trap, and if we're not vigilant,
Speaker 1: the shadows win. So what now, Grace for Kelly, She's
Speaker 1: human healing in public. She puts herself out there. But
Speaker 1: let's use this as a wake up demand better from
Speaker 1: not just our peers, but ourselves. Cross check claims, support
Speaker 1: platforms like on Toco, lips that amplify experiencers with safeguard,
Speaker 1: and in Total Disclosures corner, we're doubling down on evidence
Speaker 1: first storytelling, Got a tip, a doc, hit the comments
Speaker 1: or dm me. Together we filter the static. If this resonates,
Speaker 1: smash the like button, subscribe and share with your friends
Speaker 1: and family. Let's build a community that chases true, not tales.
Speaker 1: This is total disclosure. And again, this is not an
Speaker 1: attack on Kelly. It's just the latest in the long line.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm
Speaker 1: Yeah
Apple Podcasts
Castbox
Castro
Goodpods
Moon FM
Overcast
Pocket Casts
Podbean
Podcast Addict
Podcast Republic
Spotify