Q folks, I asked this question on Day 1: "Why is disinformation necessary". The answer I received was "plausible deniability." So now I ask this question: Why does one need plausible deniability?

Please dont ban me, mods, I'm simply trying to understand this process. I understand a cover story for a human; I cant wrap my head around false info or (my apologies) flat out lies. I know the intent is not nefarious, but isnt the blunt truth always better and if not, why do you think not? Why does one need plausible deniability?

>>117308

Fiogive me for questioning you further on this. I understand the paper ball thrower; I dont understand the paperball, or disinfo, itself. Is it to confuse? To flush out? To distract? All of the above?

>>117322

*forgive

>>117397

I could never see it as Gannett either

and here come the shills

>>117504

I did. It said it was Ukrainian but no translation. You are correct, ga n n e tt brought shills

>>117457

>>117450

I think the American public will forgive those who were threatened/coerced. After all, the intent of the heart is what matters. May those with evil intent be executed.

This is why I see disinfo produced by the abc agencies as causing mistrust within the American ppl for those agencies. "Comey is evil and nefarious" "Comey was coerced and threatened" "Comey is a nutjob hiding behind the curtains"…all of these coming from equally "reliable" sources who claim insider ties , so when the truth finally comes out, the American ppl will feel duped by someone and trust will be eroded.