The first problem is signal to noise ratio.
That sort of disinformation ramps up the noise fast. The signal then merely needs to look indistinguishable from the noise. It is so so much easier to hide out amongst freaks, geeks, and weirdos. Even Johnny English could hide out in such a crowd and not remotely stand out.
Nononono. If you want to pick out the signal, you need to reduce the noise in both quantity and volume. The signal then has nowhere to hide.
The second problem is the advertising.
What does it really require to monitor an aircraft? Active RADAR? No. Passive RADAR using civilian radio transmissions would be undetectable and can be done in post-processing as long as you have a good enough recording that's adequately timestamped and location stamped. And if it's stealth? Then detect it by the shadow. A marked dip in cosmic rays coming in from a narrow point where your passive RADAR shows nothing wouldn't be hard.
Throw in thermal cameras and you've got the temperature of the engines. Recordings through diffraction gratings will tell you what molecules are in the exhaust.
And what's needed to do all this? Well, as long as you record the data at the site and process it offline at someplace like GCHQ or the equivalent in other nations, then it requires very little on site. A motor home would likely be big enough to lug around what you need to do the recording side and who the hell is going to notice one motor home amongst a group of thirty?
No, advertising is a very poor way to do anything because you can potentially learn most of what matters both passively and remotely.