2 ms·
Of course the government would deny. It doesn't make sense for them to proactively deny it. If it was government propaganda, why would they attack the Bloomber
by WillPostForFood 8y ago
Of course the government would deny.
It doesn't make sense for them to proactively deny it. If it was government propaganda, why would they attack the Bloomberg story. They could just say we can't confirm it, which would leave the door open to it being true. Denying it is counterproductive if it was a planted propaganda piece.
It is a fascinating story, anything is still possible, but the momentum is starting to swing against Bloomberg.
- village-idiot 8y agoBeyond that, a denial is actually quite rare. The 3 letter agencies usually stick with the Glomar Response, we can neither confirm nor deny, to prevent people from determining the truth by process of elimination.
- rangibaby 8y agoRefuse to confirm or deny could have helped the US in 1960: An American U2 "weather research" plane is shot down over the USSR. The US strongly denied that the U2 was a spy plane and produced "weather research" U2s in NASA livery and a story about how the pilot's oxygen equipment malfunctioned. ...the USSR had failed to mention that the U2 pilot (Gary Powers) was alive and well, and that the definitely-a-spy-plane was recovered mostly intact. Oops!