OK Bee-dubya-ell -

Now which US Defense Department Lie are we supposed to believe?

1. US DoD has a history of denying secret device development projects.

2. US DoD is as likely as any "foregn power" to want to track DoD contractors.

3. A good cover story is better than the best prevention, when something wants to be kept "secret."

4. A good "official denial" is one of the better ways to encourage many people to believe the first lie.

Sceneario #1:

One department accidentally discovered something another department was doing, and made a public report of it. Second deparment "officially denies" that the purported thing is technologically feasible and claims it can't be done, to salvage the project.

Scenario #2

The first story was a "plant" to cause someone else to respond, and the first lie is being recalled by the second denial. A "response" as trivial as making "suspects" reluctant to carry small change would be sufficient cause. "Encouraging" another (foreign?) agency to attempt to replicate a non-existing device might interupt and delay other work believed to be in process by "someone." etc.

Scenario #3

The first story was a "plant" to cause someone else to respond, and the first lie is being reinforced by the second denial.

Scenario #4

The first story was true, and another agency knew it and was obtaining information by observing someone else's use of this mystery device. The second story is to make the third-party someone feel safe in resuming use.

Scenario #5

Both stories were concocted to distract someone from learning something else that someone is doing or might do.

Any public announcement by an "official agency" known for it's reputation for "disinformation" could be just the current lie, but no such statement carries much weight without physical evidence. Unless/until someone finds "a coin" the first lie remains suspect. Since proving something doesn't exist is so seldom done, the second lie can't be proven and remains suspect.

Personally, I don't believe either story rates "full faith and credit," and quite likely both are "disinformation releases."

John