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

a reply to: luthier

I was argueing against the fact they happen within 3 years.

If you are arguing against a fact then you haven’t got a hope, but you’re not arguing against a fact. The paper didn’t say all conspiracies have a lifetime of three years, or anything like it.

I’m going out on a limb here and guessing you didn’t read the paper.

a reply to: Astyanax

Right.

Did you read my arguement?

I am saying it would be a more accurate or rather useful study if they showed the averages based on different institutions.

Such as the military
The government
The private sector
The church
Etc

Yes I read the study and its authors summary.
I also am reading every news outlets claims about the study.

But please enlighten me

a reply to: luthier

Did you read my arguement?

With difficulty. Your grammar is poor, your spelling is atrocious and you form sentences so badly that half the time it is very hard to understand what you are talking about.

Nevertheless, I persevered, so yes, I do understand your ‘arguement’. It shows that you haven’t grasped Grimes’s basic premise. Here is what you said at the beginning, and have been repeating over and over again ever since:

The author is not talking about exposure from conspiracy theorists. He is saying big secrets get exposed.

Go and look at Fig. 1 in the paper. When you have understood it, get back to me. Until then, please do not bother.

What's that favourite quote from the science community again? Oh right: "correlation does not imply causation." I wonder if that also applies in this case as well...

Also, how does one define "large-scale conspiracy"? Is it that the ramifications of the conspiracy are far-reaching or that more people are in on it? The author of the study seems to be lumping together "conspiracies" of different degrees and claiming that all are more-or-less equally accepted by segments of the general public, which is not entirely accurate.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

"correlation does not imply causation." I wonder if that also applies in this case as well.

What correlates with what?

Also, how does one define...

Read the paper.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: luthier

Did you read my arguement?

With difficulty. Your grammar is poor, your spelling is atrocious and you form sentences so badly that half the time it is very hard to understand what you are talking about.

Nevertheless, I persevered, so yes, I do understand your ‘arguement’. It shows that you haven’t grasped Grimes’s basic premise. Here is what you said at the beginning, and have been repeating over and over again ever since:

The author is not talking about exposure from conspiracy theorists. He is saying big secrets get exposed.

Go and look at Fig. 1 in the paper. When you have understood it, get back to me. Until then, please do not bother.

Really? My spelling may be poor I am on a cell. Grammar possibly. Incoherence probably not. Though a good rebuttle usually uses examples but I assume it's an ad hominem to discredit the arguement and laziness on your part.

I can no longer read the figures do to a server error. Maybe you can provide it.

The purpose of this paper seems to me to be to disprove conspiracy theories because of the percieved danger they create in society. It was designed for that purpose. It was not designed out of curiosity or the authors sumary and forward would reflect so.

I think it is flawed in its research, aproach, and considerations. I know you do not. You tried to post the study prior to finding out it was already posted.

Perhaps I was off base and it took a while to gather my arguement and its critism. I am ill at the moment and on medication. Hence posting here out of boredom and agitation of the representation of the study by the media.

You would also find I have said I agree with the study for the most part. While trying to explain it has some misleading diagnoses.

I do think if you categorized which institutions were better at conspiracies it would give the reader a better understanding of where conspiracies are most probable. Also by explaining the processes which the secrets were kept and their success or failure.

Sorry I am not up to your standards. Next time , I will edit my posts more properly and spend more time on them as if I were on a science board for your liking.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
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.

I also like that speech however the context of the speech is interesting. Some people view that speech incorrectly thinking that he's talking TPTB or elite but JFK isn't. In actuality that speech was given to the press to ask them not to interfere and spill the beans on secret operations and let out information and JFK details why its important to have a free press with the examples you gave.

However given the current state of affairs with our government these examples are in broad daylight now which shows that we no longer have a free press! I find the speech ironic

a reply to: jobless1

Thanks for chiming in on that. Well the freedom of press has been hijacked by whom? Why? If I was at the top of the food chain I would surely acquire all the media outputs to control what is said, how it is said and who hears it....So I don't know what does it change that he didn't exactly say "insert TPTB, illuminati, NWO and co here". He just put the finger on part of the bigger problem.

Whether JFK was talking about TPTB or the press, either way, the original point is that people keep secrets and it is possible for a big lie or secret to stay that way.

Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: jobless1

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
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.

I also like that speech however the context of the speech is interesting. Some people view that speech incorrectly thinking that he's talking TPTB or elite but JFK isn't. In actuality that speech was given to the press to ask them not to interfere and spill the beans on secret operations and let out information and JFK details why its important to have a free press with the examples you gave.

However given the current state of affairs with our government these examples are in broad daylight now which shows that we no longer have a free press! I find the speech ironic

Well...he did talk about the ptb quite a lot. Israeli lobby, the CIA, military industrial complex, the mob, were all on his radar. He did believe there were outside interests conspiring.