馃敾 Reading Between the Lines: The Key to Understanding What Lies Behind the Documentary The Age of Disclosure
I just finished watching The Age of Disclosure and I want to share an honest reflection with you. Like many of you, I expected to find evidence—something that would finally break through years of speculation and silence. But what I saw was something else: a well‑produced presentation with many important names speaking… yet without showing anything truly new.
Yes, the same voices we already know appear: Luis Elizondo, David Grusch, Christopher Mellon, Ryan Graves, Alex Dietrich, Robert Salas, Daniel Sheehan, Ross Coulthart, Gary Nolan—all of them offering testimonies we’ve already heard in previous interviews, conferences, and leaks. I’m not saying it’s unimportant to gather them all in one documentary. It is. But when you go in expecting clear evidence—unreleased videos, recovered technology, irrefutable documents—and don’t get it, it’s impossible not to feel that this was just another carefully measured release of information, a form of controlled disclosure.
I say this respectfully, but clearly: it feels as if someone is choosing very carefully what we’re allowed to see and what we aren’t. And in that process, they treat us like an audience that must be prepared before facing the full truth. I’m not saying this because of senseless conspiracy theories, but because of the way the message was constructed.
The documentary drags on and becomes tedious at times. The same information, the same viewpoints, circling around the same ideas. Where is the evidence? Where are the proofs we’ve been waiting for all this time? I understand that not everything can be shown—that there are protocols, national security, and conflicting interests. But then, why make us sit for almost two hours if, in the end, everything stays in words?
One detail I can’t ignore is the role of Luis Elizondo, who in this documentary comes across more like a professor than a former intelligence official. It literally feels as if he’s standing in front of a chalkboard, giving us a lesson on where this phenomenon comes from and where, according to him, we should be looking. His tone is didactic, almost paternal. That’s not necessarily bad, but if you’ve been following this topic for a long time, that attitude can feel a bit condescending.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying the documentary has no value. In fact, for those approaching this subject for the first time, it can be a solid entry point. But for those of us who have spent years tracking every development, every testimony, every leaked document, this feels like too little. Far too little.
This documentary confirms something many of us already suspected: disclosure is not going to come all at once, but in fragments—filtered, digested, and politically acceptable. And that, far from being exciting, is sometimes disappointing. Because we remain in the same place: with more words than evidence, with more gestures than certainty.
So if you plan to watch The Age of Disclosure, do it with your eyes wide open. Don’t cling only to what is said. Read between the lines. Notice what is omitted. Listen to what gets repeated. Because, as always, the truth remains just outside the frame.
By the way, there’s something I can’t stop thinking about. I’m convinced that if the case Contacto de otra Dimensi贸n had been discovered in the United States—and had ended up in the hands of a well‑known investigator like George Knapp—it would already be making headlines around the world. I say this with full responsibility. The evidence contained in this case needs no embellishment; it is clear, direct, and visually undeniable. This is not speculation. The frames captured at that moment speak for themselves.
In that sense, Contact for Another Dimension—in its translated version—may actually have a stronger impact than the documentary I’m reviewing here. Because one thing is undeniable: people want evidence, not words.
www.contactodeotradimension.cl
In February 2026, the English version will be released.
AMAZON Book
