Apart from the special interest for TikTok, the article has very carefully misleading wording: there is no actual evidence of military projects, military facili

Apart from the special interest for TikTok, the article has very carefully misleading wording: there is no actual evidence of military projects, military facilities, military personnel, secrets, and violation of secrets. It is only suggested. The marked "video viewpoint" looks like a generic parking lot/courtyard, accessible to any visitor; the object could be a radar-only Lockheed experiment, not a next-generation USAF project; the "OPSEC violation" is probably placing guards close to interesting things in the buildings instead of severely bothering visitors at the entrance to keep cameras out.