ONE MAJOR ISSUE Plaguing Modern Day UFOlogy...The Contradictory Conundrum

0:36 Speaker 1: Welcome back to Total Disclosure, where I and we chase the signals, the questions, the shadows, and never take trust me at face value. I'm your host, Ty Roberts, and on this special presentation, I wanted to clear the air on an issue that I've seen very frequently in the UFO community. For better or worse, We're diving into a story that's equal parts heartbreaking, frustrating, and all too familiar in this vast world that we call ufology. Now, this problem is much bigger than just the example that I'm about to give, the contradiction the same people who demand transparency turning around and being as vague as possible, in this case, a woman many admire Kelly Chase, the brilliantly sharp mind behind the UFO rabbit Hole podcast now rebranded as Cosmosis.

1:38 Speaker 1: Kelly's known for her rigorous no bs takes on the phenomenon. She's interviewed whistleblowers, dissected declassified docs, and called out the grift, which I have tremendous respect for. But in the following video you'll see her last episode of the UFO rabbit Hole, writing the lack of true evidence and a lot of quote unquote stories that make up the UFO narrative. Let's take a listen, be.

2:05 Speaker 2: Open about what I see, and I leave it to you to decide what you think about it. For me, the unraveling of the disclosure narrative can be traced back to Carl Nell's presentation at the first Soul Foundation Symposium, which I attended in November twenty twenty three. There has been a lot of conversation centered around Nell's talk. For example, much was made of his comments about the potential for catastrophic disclosure, which quickly entered the lexicon of the UFO community. But what I find remarkable is that as much as people give lip service to that presentation, very few of those same people seem to have integrated what he said into their understanding of the disclosure movement as a whole.

2:42 Speaker 2: They took the parts that made for good clickbait or that confirmed their desire for sudden, an ambiguous disclosure, and generally ignored the rest.

2:49 Speaker 1: I think that's a mistake.

2:50 Speaker 2: If you aren't familiar with Carl Nell, he's a retired Army colonel, aerospace executive, and corporate strategist who has worked with organizations like Bell Labs, Lockheed Martin, and a slew of other Fortune five hundred companies. In short, he's one of the highest profile members of the military intelligence community to have stepped forward to weigh in on disclosure and in Maamin. His talk at SOUL was one of the single most important moments in the conversation thus far and offered rare insights into how the intelligence community is approaching the topic of UAP transparency.

3:20 Speaker 2: I want to go through some of the main points of that presentation and why I think there's The disclosures that we've gotten from whistleblowers so far have come from known and in most cases current members of the intelligence community. Most if not all of them still hold high level security clearances and still work, whether directly or as contractors for the DoD or for aerospace defense companies. In many cases it's both, and the information shared with us by those whistleblowers is the information that has been approved by the DoD through DOOPSERDOPSER, or the Defense Office of Pre Publication and Security Review, is the US Department of Defense office responsible for reviewing and approving information before it's publicly released to ensure it does not compromise national security.

4:04 Speaker 2: So basically they have said only what the DoD has said they are allowed to say, which is why I don't think that the whistleblowers that have come forward thus far represent a threat of catastrophic disclosure. It's hard to think of any other cases of whistle blowing in either the private or public sector where whistleblowers remained in such good standing within the organizations that they were blowing the whistle on. So at the very least, these are whistleblowers who are more than willing to play by the rules.

4:30 Speaker 2: The fact that it's so controversial to even acknowledge these basic truths is because the disclosure narrative is doing exactly the things that it's supposed to do. It's getting people invested in a story and in personalities that they want to believe in enough to not just overcome cognitive dissonance, but to deputize them to help further this narrative. If you want to see how absolute and insidious the narrative control is, just try this little experiment. Log on to Reddit or x and try posting a direct quote about lou Elizondo in his own words from his own book, explaining that he was recruited into ASAP by James Lukatski to run counter intelligence for the program without adding any further commentary, and see how that goes for you.

5:10 Speaker 2: It's a fact about Lou that we only know because he told us, and yet no one is allowed to say it, much less raise any kind of legitimate questions about what it might actually mean, because those are questions that no one really wants to know the answer to. So am I saying that I think all whistleblowers are liars who are working within a DoD campaign plan for the purpose of controlled disclosure. Not exactly. I suspect it's far more complicated than that. It's easy and often necessary to talk about entities like the intelligence community or the Department of Defense as though they are monoliths, but they're clearly not.

5:44 Speaker 2: Over one million people are employed by the Department of Defense and over four million people hold security clearances. Within those millions, there are countless warring factions and all kinds of different objectives. Nothing about what is happening is straightforward, and I certainly don't out the possibility that there are good faith whistleblowers who are taking on considerable risk to do what they think is right. In fact, I'd be surprised if that weren't the case. But at the same time, I'm no longer willing to overlook the glaring evidence that the disclosure narrative, at least as it's been presented to the public, is largely a fabrication when you look at what's happening objectively, I think that's hard to deny, And though I'll admit to experiencing a significant amount of disillusion and weathering a long series of dark knights of the soul over that realization, I ultimately don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

6:34 Speaker 2: I could wax poetic for hours about the different ways to read this situation, how the tangled web of alliances, agendas, and competing interests could explain why things have unfolded the way that they have without requiring that everyone involved be a mustache twisting villain. But at the end of the day, that's all speculation. The truth is I don't actually know what's going on, and neither do you, And that's the point. Whatever the disclosure movement is, whatever teams the various experts and whistleblowers ultimately play for this is not a game that we get to play.

7:08 Speaker 2: We don't even get to know the rules. We're just spectators watching a performance where we have no way of knowing who's actually pulling the strings. And frankly, I wouldn't even want to. I've seen enough at this point to know that there are aspects of this that are very dark, very disturbing, and absolutely dangerous for anyone who wanders too close. I don't believe that it's possible to get real answers from these people anyways, so why would I bother. To be honest, I'm just no longer interested.

7:36 Speaker 2: But that's not to say that I don't still believe in certain aspects of this fight. I still believe that some form of controlled disclosure, however imperfect, probably does some good, at least in terms of moving the needle of public acceptance forward toward a broader reality. I also still fundamentally believe that holding our government accountable for how it spends our money and demanding greater transparency, especially on topics that pertain to our understanding of the cosmos, is a very worthy cause, even if true transparency is something we can only ever approach asymptotically.

8:09 Speaker 2: So you'll probably still see me lend my voice and my support to that world as it makes sense for me to do so if any of them still want to talk to me after this episode. But make no mistake, I am over disclosure.

8:22 Speaker 1: Over disclosure. And while I do agree with many of Kelly's points and sentiments, and I think we can all, in fact, I know we can all in the UFO community relate to what she's saying and the truth that she is speaking. But just weeks ago, just weeks ago, she drops a bombshell that left the UFO community and much many others like me a bit confused. A personal shadowy operation attack so traumatic it eclipsed sexual assault, kidnapping, losing a parent, all rolled into one, no evidence, no names, just her words, which again would be fine and not out of the norm.

9:09 Speaker 1: In fact, it's usually what we get. However, given who she is and what she just said in her last episode while she was rebranding, it was jarring the contradiction, and when she tried to unpack it in an AMA, the stream cut off right on cue coincidence or a techlitch, something straight out of the playbooker she herself is warning us about. I really want to stress that this is only one example. It's Kelly's story, but it's a mirror to the UFO community's biggest blind spot, our addiction to unverified trauma and experiences dressed up as truths.

9:45 Speaker 1: Why do we demand evidence from the government but swallow trust me from our own. Let's unpack this because if we're ever going to get real disclosure, whatever that means, it starts with owning our own faults contradictions.

10:01 Speaker 2: Day and I had just started in the fall of twenty twenty three, something happened, something bad. Jay and I had just started production on our docu series Cosmosis UFOs and a New Reality, and it felt like there was an endless field of possibility laid out in front of us. We had something to say, and we had each built our own individual platforms to be able to say it. We were running on adrenaline inspiration, and we felt like we were exactly where we were supposed to be. And then, like a thunderbolt out of the sky, it all came to a screeching halt.

10:36 Speaker 2: Without ever intending to, we saw behind the curtain. We wandered too close to something we didn't understand, and we got burned badly. I'm not someone who's unfamiliar with trauma. I was the victim of sexual violence when I was young. I was kidnapped while traveling in Colombia. I held my father's hand while he took his last breath decades too soon. What happened was worse than all of those things combined.

11:06 Speaker 3: It was worse not just because of the severity of what had happened, but because it showed me a kind of darkness that I didn't know existed. Jay has described the world that we found ourselves in in the aftermath of those events as kafka esque, and I think that's the perfect word.

11:24 Speaker 2: If you're unfamiliar. The term kofka esque refers to us. But what happened to us was a surprisingly complex operation

11:36 Speaker 2: that evolved seemingly a lot of people. It was physical, This was something that these weren't threats. There was no threat. It would have been nice you've gotten a threat.

11:46 Speaker 1: First I give a.

11:49 Speaker 2: Girl heads up, like all stop, like just let me know. It would have been nice to have gotten threat. And you know, in terms of I think it's very fair for people to ask, you know, is this something You can't just say this because like what if somebody else stumbles into the same thing. I will say that what happened was.

12:11 Speaker 3: So At the top, well it says it's still live,

12:19 Speaker 3: and then down here.

12:26 Speaker 1: Are you serious? See very different tone from start video to finish video. First we're talking about how bad, how gruesome, how it was worse than sexual abuse, being kidnapped, and losing a parent all in one. And I know we all process grieve differently. I understand that we all process emotions differently. But I did hold my mother's hand she took her last breath, jokingly laugh about it. Oh, just send a warning. I would have stopped the rides of a skeptical voice. Kelly Chase didn't stumble into ufology.

13:04 Speaker 1: She built a platform on skepticism wrapped in curiosity, launching the UFO rabbit Hole in twenty twenty one. She turned it into a top forty science podcast for the most part, scripted beautifully told over one hundred episodes, bending experience her stories, historical deep dots, and brutal takedowns of hype. Remember her episodes on the secret onion of government secrecy, or her keynote at Contact in the Desert on UFO Narrative Wars, where she laid bare how intelligence ops weaponized belief itself.

13:40 Speaker 1: Kelly wasn't chasing clout. She co founded on Tocolips, produced the docuseries Ufo Revolution for twob and even starred in Cosmosis, usually a studying exploration of non human intelligence that hits streaming in twenty twenty five. Her vibe not non first his stories but grounded, rebranded to Cosmosis. Why, in her own words from the final rabbit Hole episode, that you just heard modern neuthology had become theater, a circus of trust, me bro claims, edited clips, loyalty tests and group chats, and influencers peddling unfalsifiable lore.

14:19 Speaker 1: She stepped back disclosure narrative the Washington whistleblower circuits to focus on the raw human side of encounters. Ufology and disclosure aren't the same, she posted on February twenty sixth I'm not leaving, just done with the personalities and the noise. It was a seemingly mic drop moment. Fans cheered, critics even nodded. Kelly was positioning herself as the antidote to the echo chamber evidence over emotion, patterns over personalities. The bombshell Fall twenty twenty three and the Unseen assault.

15:00 Speaker 1: Fast forward to October thirty first, twenty twenty five Halloween. Fittingly, Kelly drops a video on X in her Cosmosis Origins episode. I never thought I'd talk about this, but silence sounds like consent. She reveals that in Fall twenty twenty three, she and co host J Christopher King got too close to the machinery of institutional secrecy. What followed well a nefarious UFO disclosure, focused intelligence operation, not threats or grooming, physical, and as serious as it gets. In a follow up clip shared widely, she says it was worse than being sexually assaulted, kidnapped, and holding her father's hand as he died combined the impact life altering.

15:57 Speaker 1: She backed away from the field. She stayed quiet to protect the loved ones and watch people assume she still backed things and people. I absolutely don't belief. Ufology is mostly distraction, a laser pointer that keeps us chasing our tails, chasing the shadows. The phenomenon is alive in us, but secrecy manipulates us into distrusting our own eyes. That's powerful stuff. It's raw, but here's a rub. There's no specifics, no timeline beyond fall twenty twenty three. No evidence to suggest that this actually happened, not even a redacted email or witness nod other than our co hosts, which again is just fine, but given who you are, I think a little bit more is warranted.

16:54 Speaker 1: Just her voice trembling but resolute, and in a community she once roasted for exactly this, The trust me Trava dumps without receipts. It landed like a gut bunch what happened to Kelly Chase. So then there's the AMA lights out at a critical moment. I feel like Kelly almost knew, like the questions were coming. On November tenth, she and Jay announced a live AMA on the Cosmosis YouTube channel Thursday, November thirteenth, six pm Eastern. Ask us anything they posted, thirty percent was going to be from Patreon, the rest from socials.

17:35 Speaker 1: They just asked that you kept it respectful. Hundreds tuned in, the chat buzzed. They fielded queries on Cosmosis experience, their safety, and then they got into the attack as they knew they would, and right as Kelly dives into details on the question everyone wanted answered, stream cuts black silence. Her follow up on x Post at midnight November fourteenth, our live stream cut off. Everything looked good on our end, which I did show you in that video. We're having weird tech issues now and we're honestly a little creeped out again, leaning in to the idea that someone is tampering with her technology.

18:24 Speaker 1: They promised an update in the morning, but by the next day she joined a Twitter space hosted by Tupa and Red Panda Kuala, elaborating further on the nudge into nefarious operation, and it's followed. Listeners called her articulate and graceful, but the cutoff lingered like a bad omen a techlitch. YouTube's finicky. Sure, riverside all of the stream yards. They can all be finicky, but in ufology, where every static burst is a sign it fueled the fire, come on, I mean, it's it's so over the top. Fans rallied, they silenced her, Skeptics rolled their eyes.

19:11 Speaker 1: Convenient timing tell yourself leaned into the unease, tying it back to her warnings about counterintelligence flooding narratives with chaos, the contradiction, and I think why it hits so hard and what it says about US trauma. It's not debate club, it's a topic for debate. You don't prove violation with a Foier request. And in a field riddled with intelligence community, adjacent grifters, signal chats, vetting podcasts, loyalty tests, she nailed that all in a twenty twenty five spaced out radio clip.

19:48 Speaker 1: Her story. It does scream validity. If anyone's ever earned our ear, it's her. That's the knife twist. This is exactly the trust me style she declared and decried a couple of years ago, was the reason she was backing away the UFO narrative wars. She a viscerated how secrecy uses half truce, character hits and unfalse viable claims to engineer confusion. Gatekeepers aren't hiding the facts, they're scripting the show. Yet here she is post rebrand delivering a claim. And it's more theatrical than an X Files cold open.

20:28 Speaker 1: It's worse than an assault, a kidnapping, and a parental loss. Why compare it to that if not to tuget people's hearts, at their emotional core, at their visceral attitudes. It's vivid, unverifiable, the AMA cut off. It could just be that it was all technical glitch. But till then lean into it, you know is going to add fuel to the fire. This isn't a Kelly takedown. I want to make that very clear. It's a symptom uphologies contradiction once so deep, I've been guilty of it. We rage at NASA's no evidence dodges, but lapp experience or sagas without a single corroborating pixel.

21:15 Speaker 1: Whistleblowers like Grute get congressional seats on testimony alone. Influencers block critics for asking show your work it is, and it has become an echo chamber fuel a belief as battleground where doubt is attacking heroes. As one defender tweeted at Kelly in May twenty twenty five, the cost credibility erosion when trust me becomes currency, real signals drown and noise. Kelly's pivot to phenomenon over politics was brilliant until now it pulled her back. It pulled her back. In fact, it reminds us even the sharpest voices can slip and fall into the trap, and if we're not vigilant, the shadows win.

22:07 Speaker 1: So what now, Grace for Kelly, She's human healing in public. She puts herself out there. But let's use this as a wake up demand better from not just our peers, but ourselves. Cross check claims, support platforms like on Toco, lips that amplify experiencers with safeguard, and in Total Disclosures corner, we're doubling down on evidence first storytelling, Got a tip, a doc, hit the comments or dm me. Together we filter the static. If this resonates, smash the like button, subscribe and share with your friends and family.

22:49 Speaker 1: Let's build a community that chases true, not tales. This is total disclosure. And again, this is not an attack on Kelly. It's just the latest in the long line.

23:00 Speaker 3: Mm hmm

23:57 Speaker 1: Yeah