Math Predicts Large-Scale Conspiracies Would Fall Apart (Is Probably LIES Anyway so Whatever)

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The only way to 'prove' a conspiracy has taken place is in a court of law. If you don't have standing to make that happen, then the conspirators will get away with blatant crimes even if co-conspirators and unwitting participants spill some beans.

Compound that problem with a media that hates conspiracy theorists and it's very easy for a large conspiracy to go unpunished.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

It makes sense to me. The bigger the secret, the harder it is to keep it.

Seems he didn't give any comparable historical examples. So, how does "contemporary statistical probability" explain the improbable outcomes for events which we know the results today, in hindsight?

What is the "contemporary statistical probability" of the "French Resistance" forming, keeping a low profile and succeeding during WWII?

What is the "contemporary statistical probability" of the something like the "French French Revolution" keeping a low profile while forming and eventually occurring?

What is the "contemporary statistical probability" of the "Vietcong" winning the Indochina wars?

What is the "contemporary statistical probability" of the "Peasants Revolt" occurring?

What is the contemporary "statistical probability" of the "Spanish Inquisition" forming in the 12th century and having lasting influence up to the Napoleonic Wars?

I would surmise that these above noted events are "statistically, just as unlikely to occur, as the ones he is discrediting, except today we know the historical outcomes (they actually happen despite the odds).

a reply to: boohoo

That's along the lines with what I was thinking... Where is his control group data? Has his model worked or been accurate on conspiracies that have been proven true?

Many people have mentioned the flawed perspective of the math being used. One example: the conspiracy to stifle the cure for cancer....

....this doesn't even have to be a conspiracy. It could just be perspective of the people creating the business plan. It would seem common sense that developing treatment yields more revenue that developing cures. It doesn't take a whole lot of purposeful conspiracy to stifle a cure when you are looking for treatments instead.

It'd be like me coming home from a deer hunt with nothing but a bunch of fish, and blaming luck rather than the fact that I took a fishing pole.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It doesn't take a whole lot of purposeful conspiracy to stifle a cure when you are looking for treatments instead.

Except that the treatment actually can be the cure.
I'm a living example. The last money I spent on chemo was 28 years ago.
I'm not alone.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hadn't considered that because the practice was pretty much a given.
I guess that it actually would qualify though.

There was also the cold war testing of all kind.
Like the St Louis radiation testing.
m.huffpost.com...

There were all kinds of psychiatric expirements. Even done on CIA agents.

Don't forget infecting people with siphulus in central america.

There are a lot.

I agree with the paper for the most part but it does seem to miss that the government would have access to scientists who could run modelling for the opposite reason and plan accordingly.

Like for instance having people especially lay people not know what they are doing (like only a portion of or being told for something else) or why exactly. I think there are some holes here.

a reply to: luthier

There are a lot.

You missed my point.
Those tests were not exposed by conspiracy theorists. Nor were they the subject of conspiracy theories until after they came to light.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luthier

There are a lot.

You missed my point.
Those tests were not exposed by conspiracy theorists.

Which ones? What would qualify as a conspiracy theorist?

But I can get your point it's just I don't know if its that simple or where the line of a journalist /conspiracy theorist would be. Can you be both?

Have any ended up dead snooping? Who knows there is evidence to suggest extreme lapses in morality with these examples.

I was more pointing out the study was some what flawed.
Also the author is not talking about exposure from conspiracy theorists. He is saying big secrets get exposed.

I want to point out this study and program is not about whether or not people know the conspiracy even exists. It's saying that large scale conspiracies, meaning when people conspire, are not likely to succeed.

It has no bearing on conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists. It s just saying its hard to conspire and keep it secret for too long.

The flaw in the study to me I believe would be that this program (or one like it )has existed for some time and it can be used in reverse to tell conspirators where they would go wrong and allow them to input data on variables until they find the probability of keeping their secret in an acceptable range. Pretty sure there are even good reasons to do this as far as military secrets go.

Or maybe it's too late and that doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It doesn't take a whole lot of purposeful conspiracy to stifle a cure when you are looking for treatments instead.

Except that the treatment actually can be the cure.
I'm a living example. The last money I spent on chemo was 28 years ago.
I'm not alone.

In some cases, yes. It "can" be a cure. There are quite a few things that impact that, including diet (high fat/protein/fiber and low carb is helpful for cancer treatment).

But chemo isn't a cure. It can cure some folks....but even "cure" is a misnomer in many cases. In most lymphoma's, curing isn't the goal. Remission is the goal, as 'cure' is something that they believe just doesn't typically happen (due to the nebulous nature of lymphoma).

My dad and grandfather neither one were cured by chemo. Despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the chemo. My mom...spent $140k on 6 doses of CHOP and Rituxin and she's been "cured". But the effects of the chemo gave her 5 new illnesses to deal with.

Phage, im truly happy chemo worked for you 28 years ago. Had it not, I would not have had the opportunity to have you enrich my life here at ATS. But its hardly a "cure". It helps some....but at a cost of $20k + per dose....its obvious to me that (as an example), there is little motivation to develop more effective lymphoma treatments that do more than create cycles of remission that carry a price tag of $150k every couple of years. R-CHOP is very effective at "melting" lymphoma tumors. Its terrible, however, at eradicating the cancer.

I find the conclusions faulty.

What about Operation Mockingbird? The press, scores of people, being paid to deliver the government story went on for more than 20 years, before it was admitted. How is that possible under this model?

Same with MK Ultra. More than 20 years as a conspiracy theory before proven. Northwoods was 25 years.

How it is possible that these former "conspiracy theories" took so long to be acknowledged? Isn't it also possible that even more insidious conspiracies like 9/11 have also happened, in that it has been less than 15 years? I am sure that is the case, actually.

This report leaves a lot to be desired. It appears to be hit piece on conspiracy theory. Needed after the X-FILES first episode.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In most lymphoma's, curing isn't the goal. Remission is the goal, as 'cure' is something that they believe just doesn't typically happen (due to the nebulous nature of lymphoma).

Hodgkin lymphoma here. Stage III.
100% fatal without treatment. 28 years ago I had my last treatment. I am not alone.

I also get angry when people claim that there is no interest in curing people.

Yes cancer kills a lot of people. Sometimes because their disease was discovered a late stage. Sometimes because there are some forms of cancer which do not respond well to any treatment. Sometimes because they refuse treatment which would benefit them.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Operations like Mockingbird did have their "cover" blown or leaks about their operation, even if no one took them seriously enough at first. The CIA did have to make a public admission after 20 years as you noted. That would not have been forthcoming if inquiries weren't being made into it.

Northwoods is not a conspiracy per se, it was a Pentagon think tank strategy. Fully documented albeit top secret. Comparing a conspiracy among individuals to commit an act to a military top secret strategy aren't the same - and even then, Northwoods was outed.

The paper doesn't address what happens when a conspirator or whistle-blower does come forward, but then "suicided" by TPTB to keep the conspiracies cover in place. NSA warrantless wiretapping was exposed long before Snowden came along, but no one really believed the earlier leakers.

a reply to: Phage

Doctors may be interested....but I doubt this guy is:



Marijn Dekkers, CEO of Bayer.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Operations like Mockingbird did have their "cover" blown or leaks about their operation, even if no one took them seriously enough at first. The CIA did have to make a public admission after 20 years as you noted. That would not have been forthcoming if inquiries weren't being made into it.

Northwoods is not a conspiracy per se, it was a Pentagon think tank strategy. Fully documented albeit top secret. Comparing a conspiracy among individuals to commit an act to a military top secret strategy aren't the same - and even then, Northwoods was outed.

The paper doesn't address what happens when a conspirator or whistle-blower does come forward, but then "suicided" by TPTB to keep the conspiracies cover in place. NSA warrantless wiretapping was exposed long before Snowden came along, but no one really believed the earlier leakers.

The paper has plenty of holes in it. For instance a conspiracy does not have to be known at all by anyone outside the conspiracy.

A conspiracy can have asymmetric strategy to keep is concealed (mis direction).

A conspiracy as i keep saying may use algorithmic programs to guide how to keep it concealed through modelling.

A conspiracy does not have to have many people aware of the conspiracy for it to be large scale. They can be doing research for instance they believe is for something else entirely.

Overall it seems like the paper just says what everyone knows already. The more people that know the harder it is to keep a secret. Like the big general conspiracies are hard to control. I don't think it looks at many of the variables used to keep other kinds of secrets like those in military strategy. The same techniques cross over in keeping conspires from being known.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Operations like Mockingbird did have their "cover" blown or leaks about their operation, even if no one took them seriously enough at first. The CIA did have to make a public admission after 20 years as you noted. That would not have been forthcoming if inquiries weren't being made into it.

Northwoods is not a conspiracy per se, it was a Pentagon think tank strategy. Fully documented albeit top secret. Comparing a conspiracy among individuals to commit an act to a military top secret strategy aren't the same - and even then, Northwoods was outed.

The paper doesn't address what happens when a conspirator or whistle-blower does come forward, but then "suicided" by TPTB to keep the conspiracies cover in place. NSA warrantless wiretapping was exposed long before Snowden came along, but no one really believed the earlier leakers.

The paper has plenty of holes in it. For instance a conspiracy does not have to be known at all by anyone outside the conspiracy.

A conspiracy can have asymmetric strategy to keep is concealed (mis direction).

A conspiracy as i keep saying may use algorithmic programs to guide how to keep it concealed through modelling.

A conspiracy does not have to have many people aware of the conspiracy for it to be large scale. They can be doing research for instance they believe is for something else entirely.

Overall it seems like the paper just says what everyone knows already. The more people that know the harder it is to keep a secret. Like the big general conspiracies are hard to control. I don't think it looks at many of the variables used to keep other kinds of secrets like those in military strategy. The same techniques cross over in keeping conspires from being known.

Best real life example?

The Manhattan Project, which operated from 1942-1947, cost $1.89 Billion dollars and employed 130,000 PEOPLE! Note that figure is not adjusted for inflation and would be $24.8 Billion today. To compare, the F-35 had a development cost of 59.2 Billion ($1.3 trillion total with $59.2 billion for development, $261 billion for procurement and another $590 billion for operations). Also, the F-117 Stealth Fighter and B-2 Stealth Bomber BOTH had lower development costs than the F-35 COMBINED and we certainly know, from history, that the people involved in ALL these projects kept their mouths SHUT, during the development phases.

DONE, nothing left to discuss OR, are we to believe, that the development processes for the "Manhattan Project", the "B-2 Stealth Bomber" AND the "F-117 Stealth Fighter'" ALL were "conspiracies" too, proven to be false by "contemporary statistical probability" ?

Because truth would be exposed, not true, but truth. After that, conspiracies would loose sense.

One example in the real world involving thousands of people who are part of a big plan (a conspiracy is just a plan), and almost all of these plans are secret with specific orders given to some: the army.

There are actions and events that were carried out by the military decades ago that are still secret, that we will never know about unless they choose to let us know. I don't see things falling apart, when they do marketeers take care of that.

Saying that to carry out a big conspiracy is impossible is to under estimate evil or over estimate the intelligence of people.

I guess this math dude forgot what JFK told the world "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.".

I really would love to hear what the producer of such a study would have to say to that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It makes sense to me. The bigger the secret, the harder it is to keep it.

That's not necessarily logically sound.

It depends on important variables such as the fervour of the subjects to keep something secret and the resources at their disposal to do so.