It's a requirement to prevent mixing up classified and unclassified information. Computer screens display banners like this
External Quote:
Displaying "target not identified" would make more sense than "UNCLASSIFIED" in green.
Jeremy Corbell stressed that the video wasn't illegally recorded on a cell phone, but that a "VIPER team" was invited to record it, and it's unclassified.
Please bear with me with the following slightly longer explanation on classified military information and the Drone Testing Hypothesis (heretofore "DTH"):
In most modern armed forces, any testing of a new capability is classified for obvious reasons:
To ensure a military advantage over the enemy. A capability of a given weapon system is not only defined by its technical specifications but also its psychosocial impact, including
its ability to surprise and confound the enemy. These two facts add credence to the hypothesis of drone testing in and around a known UAS base in San Clemente, unbeknownst to the rank-and-file Navy staff participating in the test. The more strategically important the capability under development, the higher its classification level and security clearance within the armed forces. Rank-and-file military personnel, as a rule, have very limited access to highly classified information.
Furthermore, to ensure a successful test of, say, a prototype reconnaissance drone, rank-and-file Navy staff participating in a broader exercise within which such a test is conducted, would be deliberately kept in the dark on the drone test. Navy radar readings of these UAV by an older radar could well be determined unclassified, and be submitted to the UAP Task Force for further analysis as potential aerial threats yet to be identified.
Under the DTH, (1) the confusion generated amid Navy crew, (2) leaks of unclassified Navy footage and (3) the resulting rampant public speculation on seemingly other-worldly technology, would constitute some of the many results of the drone test -- some of them foreseeable and deliberate (surprise amongst Navy crew) and others unintended (leaks and the consequent UFO speculation amongst the general public).
Intentional or not, leaks of unclassified Navy videos leading to vibrant public speculation do not necessarily risk uncovering the new capabilities being tested, but in fact serve to produce the very opposite effect. They help to create a smokescreen which the military may well, after the fact, take advantage of. What better proxy for a military vessel manufactured by a particular national entity than 'a possible alien craft'.
Even the Navy's own UAP Task Force confirming publicly the inconclusiveness of the Navy sightings contributes to a helpful smokescreen around any prototype military capability.
Withholding classified drone test information from the majority of the UAP Task Force would likely be sensed by the 'believers' within the Task Force. Sensing that key information is being withheld while their Alien Technology Hypothesis (ATH) is not taken seriously, would frustrate a believer. Hence the perception of an unfair 'dismissiveness' or 'coverup' by a former Task Force member. This, in turn, would lead to leaks and 'resignations' by believing Task Force members who, in their own mind, are simply promoting open and honest inquiry into matters of planetary concern.
From the military perspective, however, letting ATH-believers in the Task Force know about classified drone tests would risk leaking highly classified information on military capabilities to the public.
In terms of the scientific plausibility of competing hypotheses, the (1) proximity of the USS Omaha sightings to the San Clemente UAS base and (2) USS Omaha radar readings that are well within the physical parameters of known UAS technology, adds significant weight to the DTH as compared to every other hypothesis.