Why did Disclosure Day misrepresent Kecksburg?

This weekend, I had the chance to visit the Kecksburg UFO Festival, and while there, I was reminded of something I noticed a few weeks ago. Having gone to see Disclosure Day, I found it both interesting and a bit perplexing, and, unfortunately, the fictional footage presented as news clips proved problematic. 

One major example is the footage of the Kecksburg UFO crash. While it was nice to see Steven Spielberg acknowledge the crash in this film, something that the government has failed to do for decades, other than a small mention in Project Blue Book, its visual depiction was a far cry from the acorn-shaped craft that some eyewitnesses identified. The saucer-shaped object just does not match the reports. 

To me, a fan of both Spielberg and Close Encounters, which in some ways drew me into the UFO topic in my youth, this was disappointing. For a filmmaker known for his accuracy and research, this departure from reported reality seems odd. 

If you aren’t familiar with Kecksburg, here’s a brief synopsis. The Kecksburg UFO Incident of December 9, 1965, has been researched for decades. On that date, eyewitnesses from multiple states and Canada reported seeing a strange fireball in the sky, leading to the discovery of an acorn-shaped metallic object in the woods outside the tiny community of Kecksburg. Not long after the object hit the ground, a disproportionately large and rapid armed military response descended on the small rural Pennsylvania town.

Unfortunately, what the military found remains unknown, and as has become the norm, the government denies any knowledge of the incident. 

Watching Disclosure Day reminded me of watching the Obama-funded Leave the World Behind, where the more you watched, the more you discovered once you pulled back the different layers. And seeing the Kecksburg footage makes me want to dive back into the film once it is streaming so I can comb through it as I did with Leave the World Behind. 

Yes, it could be nothing more than an artistic choice, but something feels off with that explanation. What do you think? Was it an artistic decision, or is it a sign to dig deeper? Sound off in the comments and let me know what you think.