>>12980518Technically, it's not disinformation if it's unidentified.
I have absolutely no idea why the Navy and the Pentagon decided to be more transparent about UFOs, but they're not lying by saying the footage is authentic. The question you *should* be asking is, "authentic videos of what?".
More plainly, if it is a "disinformation" campaign, it's the most ingenious "disinformation" campaign ever because there's really no disinformation at all:
>Step 1Acquire a blurry video taken by your own military personnel.
>Step 2Label it "unidentified" because the video is too pixelated to accurately make out what is in the video.
>Step 3Don't put any security restrictions on access to the video so that it can be easily leaked.
>Step 4When you are inevitably questioned (presumably officially, through FoIA requests, news reporters, etc) whether or not the footage is authentic, declare that it is.
>Step 5Watch the public be sent into a flurry of speculation about the object(s) in the footage.
The videos gain notoriety because they've been "confirmed authentic" by the Pentagon, and all they needed to do was say "yes, this pixelated video of something we can't identify because it's too pixelated was indeed taken by military personnel). They don't have to do or say anything incorrect and suddenly everyone goes crazy. It's like how psychics appear to be all-knowing when really all they're doing is saying things that are obvious and apply to everyone.
