UAPs, Disinfo & Controlled Chaos – A Strategic Psyop?
With guys like Elizondo, Mellon, and now Tim Phillips stepping forward, here's a theory: What if the U.S. gov
intentionally fed false UAP data to some of its own intelligence officers?
Think about it. If a core black program has
real exotic tech or crash retrievals, it would:
- Keep the circle extremely small (need-to-know)
- Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS
- Confuse adversaries by projecting "maybe we have alien tech"
- Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues
Phillips mentioning a "hazing" operation might hint at this: some officers were baited with partial truths to see who'd bite — or leak. It's a perfect intelligence play:
Result? Public confusion. Gov insiders split. Foreign spies guessing. And the real tech — if it exists — stays buried in the noise.
To preface one part, there is no such thing as "core black" or other variations like "deep black" programs. These are terms made up by people resting on the public not understanding proper terminology of the sort to try and perceptively raise credence.
So, as for "PSYOP" - no. PSYOP is a specific practice. At the most, what we have with these events when they do occur, are a mix of either counterintelligence, OPSEC, and/or DISO.
PSYOP is a form of mass communication within (certain nations, important distinction) military communication practices. CI and OPSEC are not communication fields at all. Deception Activities are blended communication functions, although, explicitly, not mass communication. These can be supported by PSYOP folks, but we have no indicators of such ever occurring at all.
Now, when we speak to the above three categories of practices;
-DISO does not seek to target persons, at all. Rather, it targets adversarial intelligence sensors and sensory aides.
-Offensive CI can target individual persons, including public persons. In any of these cases, it would relate to preventing, disrupting, or degrading hostile intelligence activities, not the general public.
-OPSEC is focused on information itself. It does consider threats and resulting risks, but any sort of messaging or etc would be carried out by another.
Using the understandings from any of these 3 fields, none of the 4 objectives above make much sense.
"Keep the circle extremely small" - This would fall under either OPSEC or CI. In implementation terms, this would be achieved through things program compartmentalization, bigot lists, controlled access, etc. Releasing false information does not inherently benefit this and is unlikely to be done for said reason.
"Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS" - This hits the issues with not understanding the fields of reference. None of those target the public like that, this only works in the public knowledge context. Intelligence services generally do not care about woo if you have access they want, such is what analysis is for. This is why the Soviets for example would explicitly send officers to UFO conventions and etc to try and pick up references from people working on R&D programs in the military.
Now, if adjusted, this can 'work' in some ways. For example, using proper references, you could use false planted information as such so if that person is recruited or leaks, it *degrades the quality of information* which in turn can degrade adversarial intelligence processes.
"Confuse adversaries by projecting 'maybe we have alien tech'" - This was done so much during the Cold War that it does not really get serious traction with the specific folks we're talking about and involves a much larger wall on emerging science developments at the time spurring prior occurances even 'working' (eg Soviets research into psychotronics, which spurred all the US para- developments wrt the new age military science era). To break this line down properly would involve a whole wall of its own too, it's not as issued as the others in ideation but goes back to the point of it being an explicit need to actually use related practices understandings rather than pop-culture references.
"Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues" - This is a thing for some countries in their related understandings, but at least for the US this is not really a thing in that regard. If it ever does come up, it's not as a formal objective, but more a pocket idea from a commander (which would then be formalized by referenced practitioners).
Also no hate but your post seems like it was written by AI. There is not a single public AI that uses proper training data for these topics and instead are inundated with training data that roots with the pop-culture understandings of these ideas rather than actual source materials - I would not recommend using AI to answer these sorts of questions.
