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

originally posted by: Phage
What is it to believe something for which there is no evidence?

Lack of evidence at a given period of time does not equate to no evidence at all. We are rational beings and at times, we rely on using this technique to learn new things. When official explanations don't add up and astronomical coincidences occur, it is natural to question whether something behind the scenes has taken place.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

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.

No, even with what you just said there, the risk and resources needed to keep a secret a secret are still increased the bigger and more exposed it is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

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.

No, even with what you just said there, the risk and resources needed to keep a secret a secret are still increased the bigger and more exposed it is.

I have to say I disagree. Otherwise all military secrets would be known. All expiremental aircraft would be known etc. Obviously there are ways to keep big secrets involving many things I already listed. Why not write an algorithm that shows how to do it. Or not tell everybody all of the secret. Misdirect it when it's known say its something else. Like ufo's with expiremental aircraft. Subversion and psyops work well.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

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.

No, even with what you just said there, the risk and resources needed to keep a secret a secret are still increased the bigger and more exposed it is.

I have to say I disagree. Otherwise all military secrets would be known. All expiremental aircraft would be known etc. Obviously there are ways to keep big secrets involving many things I already listed. Why not write an algorithm that shows how to do it. Or not tell everybody all of the secret. Misdirect it when it's known say its something else. Like ufo's with expiremental aircraft. Subversion and psyops work well.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to keep a secret with it being more and more exposed. I'm just saying that it is harder to keep one the bigger it is. That's all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK got it. That makes sense and is logical.

I just think the program was useless. Of course it's harder to keep a secret that more people know.

However it seems like subversion in itself since its obviously possible to keep big secrets.

The ones that get exposed are because they no longer matter.

Everybody knew for instance spying was going on. Allies have been spying on each other since time began. Usually but not always these big secrets come out after they are not needed. It's a study of its own keeping secrets. The biggest and most dangerous ones often have the best guards against them being told.

a reply to: jobless1

The failure in this study is not everyone knows the whole plan. Compartmentalization restricts people from understanding the full scope of their actions in regards to or even if they are involved in a conspiracy.

All right. So there are the masterminds and the unknowing soldiers, who are sent off to do this or that without knowing why they’re doing it. And so the conspiracy achieves its aims without most of the conspirators even knowing... what?

That they’re conspirators?

In that case, they must think they’re really doing something else. For example, all those people involved in shooting the descent of the Lunar Module on wires on a New Mexico sound stage...

So... where are they now? Do they still think that’s what they were doing? And if not, why haven’t they come forward? Mouths stopped with gold? Wives and daughters held hostage in some NASA gulag? Or... heaven preserve us... murdered?!!?

What about the people who stopped their mouths, kidnapped their wives or murdered them? What did they think they were doing? Mid-level operators at most, they wouldn’t be in the know. How come they’re so quiet, now that they realize they’ve been fooled?

Do the conspirators have a cover story for them, too? Or another bunch of enforcers to keep them silent?

At some point, concealment becomes a bigger executive and logistical problem than driving the conspiracy itself forward. And that is why your explanation of how vast (theoretical) conspiracies are kept secret won’t work in practice.

The idea of vast, hidden conspiracies underlying the world of appearances is the very essence of fantasy. All fantasies are about a secret world, hidden away from all except a few privileged initiates, in which the rules are different from the ones in ordinary life, and seemingly impossible things are made real. Myths, fairytales, religious narratives, horror stories, all have this premise in common. And they all have something else in common, too: the secret world they tell of is always more real than reality. The red pill instead of the blue pill, remember?

Conspiracy theories have precisely the same character. They, too, are fantasies.

a reply to: luthier

Yea it seemed like stating the obvious, but hey even the obvious needs to be proven in science.

a reply to: Astyanax

Agian. That is not the study. The study is not only about crazy conspiracies it s about any large...conspiracy.

Even ones that are possibley unknown.

For instance how are military secrets kept?

Thousands of workers on the project middle systems, targeting systems, the aircraft itself. Etc. Essentailly this is the same mode as a conspiracy.


Could you write a program like the author that helps a conspirator know where secrets could get out. Could you use a program to help you keep secrets?

The lunar landing isn't the only type of conspiracy.

It took decades to find out they were pumping radiation into people's apartments in St Louis anf Galveston or siphulus was expiremented with in Guatamala. Even though there was gossip about the siphulus expirement it wasn't revealed until a few years ago.

I don't think the author had all the variables of subversion put in. It depends how well the conspiracy was designed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Yea it seemed like stating the obvious, but hey even the obvious needs to be proven in science.

Agreed.

Just not sure what the purpose is of the expirement. It doesn't seem accurate in the grand scheme of things. The data points entered seem flawed for the conclusion.

a reply to: luthier

Compartmentalization only works so far. The people who swept the floors at the Manhattan Project knew that the scientists were doing war work, which probably means a weapon. The women working the equipment at Oak Ridge knew that they were doing war work involving radioactive material. Even if they couldn't piece it all together, there were a few scientists who betrayed their work to foreign powers out of ideology. Eventually, the weapons were deployed and the work was no longer that secret anyway.

One aspect of conspiracy thought that makes no sense is why certain things would need to be kept secret. If a country had aircraft that behaved like flying saucers, they would have absolute air superiority. You would want the world to know you have that power. If you had contact with extra-terrestrials, you would want to portray them as allies if they were friendly, or rally the world against them if they were hostile. If you had a device that could provide unlimited energy, you would find a way to monetize it. If you had a cure for cancer, you would patent it and overcharge for it.

We know that conspiracies happen because they eventually get exposed. The fact that they get exposed suggests that failure to get exposed may be evidence that there is no conspiracy.

I think the problem is with the premise.

I do think that "Conspiracies fall apart" they are uncovered everyday. The issue is not that the cover is blown, the issue is that the population as a whole don't care.

originally posted by: Punisher75
I think the problem is with the premise.

I do think that "Conspiracies fall apart" they are uncovered everyday. The issue is not that the cover is blown, the issue is that the population as a whole don't care.

When real conspiracies come to light, they generally result in criminal charges or impeachment. The degree of interest that the conspiracy inspires in the public depends on much the public is affected, or at least, understands. The Libor scandal has aroused almost zero interest among the public, forgive the pun, because the financial world is so complex and opaque. On the other hand, the Iran-Contra scandal generated a great deal of heat because the concept of trading with the enemy is so straightforward.

It is ironic that conspiracy theorists tend to latch on the the grandest, and therefore least likely theories while being blind to the very real wheeling and dealing going on in the shadows. Theranos, anyone?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: luthier

Compartmentalization only works so far. The people who swept the floors at the Manhattan Project knew that the scientists were doing war work, which probably means a weapon. The women working the equipment at Oak Ridge knew that they were doing war work involving radioactive material. Even if they couldn't piece it all together, there were a few scientists who betrayed their work to foreign powers out of ideology. Eventually, the weapons were deployed and the work was no longer that secret anyway.

One aspect of conspiracy thought that makes no sense is why certain things would need to be kept secret. If a country had aircraft that behaved like flying saucers, they would have absolute air superiority. You would want the world to know you have that power. If you had contact with extra-terrestrials, you would want to portray them as allies if they were friendly, or rally the world against them if they were hostile. If you had a device that could provide unlimited energy, you would find a way to monetize it. If you had a cure for cancer, you would patent it and overcharge for it.

We know that conspiracies happen because they eventually get exposed. The fact that they get exposed suggests that failure to get exposed may be evidence that there is no conspiracy.

I don't agree. Someone knowing war work is being done is not the same as the actual device.

People had no idea they were having low level radiation pumped through the air ducts until decades later or in Galveston where they cropdusted radiation.

As far as cancer research goes I have no idea whether treatment or a cure would generate more money. I would bet the drug companies do. But I doubt it is a conspiracy.

As far as aircraft go they are black ops for a reason. To be secret. Once a device is known its that much easier to copy. There is nothing scarier to an opponent than being destroyed by something you don't understand. Also expiremental meaning being developed are most commonly kept secret. The reason they aren't sold for profit is the contract between the aero space company and the US government.

I would say the reason conspiracies are known is because they are no longer necessary to be secret or were sloppy to begin with.

Of course some get exposed. But to think they are most likely to I would say needs a disclaimer "it depends how important the conspiracy is needed to be kept secret and how well planned keeping the secret was"

a reply to: boohoo

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

Almost one hundred percent, given the historical circumstances. That is just how people respond when the government has surrendered to an enemy but the people have not. Incidentally, the French Resistance was great, but far more French accommodated or collaborated with the Nazis than opposed them — see here for a nonjudgemental discussion of the subject.

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

The French Revolution happened out in the open, in public. It was not a secret conspiracy. The Beginning of the French Revolution

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

Again, almost one hundred percent. Zoologists explain the fact that most prey escape the attacks of predators most of the time because ‘the cheetah is running for her dinner, but the gazelle is running for his life.’ The United States was fighting an unpopular, unnecessary war — a luxury war — on the opposite side of the world, without the motivation of loot or even glory — what glory is there in napalming palm-thatch villages and shooting dirt-poor peasants? — to spur on the troops and get the public on side. In retrospect it seems absurd that the Americans ever thought they could win that one. No Way to Win

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

You mean the one in Russia? In 1920? There was a civil war going on in Russia at the time and the revolt was a spontaneous reaction to Lenin’s expropriation of the peasants to feed the Bolshevik forces. It was led by an organization, the Union of Working Peasants, that was based in a region of Russia over which the Bolsheviks had no control. There was plenty of conspiring, but the revolt failed. Tambov Rebellion

The October 1917 Revolution was not a peasant’s revolt; it was the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in St Petersburg during a period of almost total anarchy. Easy enough for conspirators to conspire when society has already broken down.

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

The Inquisition was not a conspiracy. It was announced publicly by the Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus of Pope Sixtus IV and the Alhambra Proclamation of the joint monarchs of Castile and Aragon, Ferdinand and Isabella.

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured Pope Sixtus IV to agree to an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. The pope issued a bull to stop the Inquisition but was pressured into withdrawing it. On 1 November 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms. Wikipedia

I would surmise that these above noted events are "statistically, just as unlikely to occur, as the ones he is discrediting

None of the events noted are examples of successful clandestine conspiracies.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Punisher75
I think the problem is with the premise.

I do think that "Conspiracies fall apart" they are uncovered everyday. The issue is not that the cover is blown, the issue is that the population as a whole don't care.

When real conspiracies come to light, they generally result in criminal charges or impeachment.

I would contend that when we see criminal charges and impeachment, it has more to do with convenience rather than as any evidence for the other conspiracy theories being false.

a reply to: luthier

Weapons systems are generally kept secret when they are under development; this gives the nation developing them a "head start." Once they become operational, they are always highly publicized. Under-dog nations will even publicize systems that are not yet deployable if it makes them look like they are catching up. Russia, Iran, and, especially, North Korea boast about weapons they have "under development."

The fact is, Stalin knew about the atom bomb at Yalta, and the Manhattan Project was one of the biggest secrets of all time. Iran-Contra was exposed, and it involved fewer people; Watergate fewer still. There are plenty of conspiracies out there in the real world, but the successful ones are very small and thrive in the corners the general public does not understand. "Three can keep a secret when one is dead." --Shakespeare.

a reply to: boohoo

Best real life example? The Manhattan Project, which operated from 1942-1947, cost $1.89 Billion dollars and employed 130,000 PEOPLE!

Most of them didn’t know what they were doing, but they knew they were helping the war effort and they were okay with that. They had the best motivation in the world for keeping quiet — a guy named Adolf.

Besides, the project was only secret for three years. Article about the project from a 1945 issue of Life

And it was wartime. Much easier to maintain tight security in wartime.

Not such a good example after all, I guess.

a reply to: Punisher75

I would contend that when we see criminal charges and impeachment, it has more to do with convenience rather than as any evidence for the other conspiracy theories being false.

It has nothing to do with convenience, it has to do with the conspiracy being exposed. When genuine conspiracies come to light, there are consequences. The paper in the OP correctly concludes that the larger the conspiracy, the more likely it is to be exposed. That's just common sense, isn't it? Sooner or later, someone is going to slip, gloat, or boast. The more people involved, the greater the likelihood someone will screw it up.

a reply to: DJW001

How did sain louis get kept secret?

Or mkultra. Hundreds of institutions were doing research from the early 50' until the late 60's. Wasn't brought to light until 75.

a reply to: luthier

Agian. That is not the study. The study is not only about crazy conspiracies it s about any large...conspiracy.

And what I said also applies to any large conspiracy.

For instance how are military secrets kept?

I notice several people asking this question. I wonder if they can possibly be serious.

Unless they are conscripts, people who work for the military believe that they are helping defend their countries, their homes and their families against possible enemies. They acknowledge the authority of their superiors and obey it. They are under orders to keep secret matters secret, and they know that they will suffer severe penalties for disclosing them, not to mention being shamed as traitors. They are highly motivated to keep military secrets.

And of course, it is easier to take precautions in an organization like an army, where everybody has to follow orders all the time and is constantly under surveillance.

Even so, some military personnel, when they find themselves involved in secret activities that they feel are against the law or the public welfare, do turn whistleblower. But the occasions are rare, and the reasons why are pretty obvious.