proudfootz wrote:

quas wrote:Okay, that's it then. Military and intelligence agencies around the world should disband. Corporations with ties to governments should stop all business activities. Criminals should stop being criminals.

By the reasoning of this paper, it is futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

You do realise, that shit as the paper is, this is absolutely 100% wrong?

Evolving wrote:When my brake linings have worn down, it's no good arguing that they would have stopped the car in the end.

Brake linings need replacement now and again to keep them in good working order!

It's interesting that in the 'study' that some clandestine things were kept under wraps sufficiently long for the perpetrators to 'get away' with it.

Famously, the Tuskegee medical experiments which took 40 years to be revealed (not the 25 years claimed in the 'study'). Who went to jail for that? Anyone?

Old news. Ho hum. Boring!

Then, there's this:

For a conspiracy to last five years, Grimes found, there would have to be 2,521 or fewer conspirators. To last 100 years, there would have to be fewer than 125 conspirators.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/01 ... 453919235/

Not sure how many 'conspirators' are going to be alive 100 years later to spill the beans.

This looks like pseudo-science. Click bait.

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

quas wrote:Okay, that's it then. Military and intelligence agencies around the world should disband. Corporations with ties to governments should stop all business activities. Criminals should stop being criminals.

By the reasoning of this paper, it is futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

You do realise, that shit as the paper is, this is absolutely 100% wrong?

The paper is wrong.

And I am being sarcastic about anyone citing this shit paper.

proudfootz wrote:The paper is wrong.

And I am being sarcastic about anyone citing this shit paper.

Yes. The paper is wrong. However it does not, at all, in any way, follow that if the reasoning of the paper was correct it would be futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

John Platko wrote:

THWOTH wrote:The conspiracy theory is a teleological construct, taking at least two sources of information and creating a connecting narrative of necessity, reasoned out of loneliness and custard.

And yet, inexplicitly, such oddly conceived custard can be capable of shaking the trunk of a conspiracy with sufficient vigor to cause revelations of the enterprise to float among us like cherry blossoms on a fresh spring morning.

Who could have imagined that wild speculations about umbrella man, Oswald impersonators, and reverberations from the grassy knoll would lead to a movie bundling a plethora of theories into a fractured pot pie that would rouse the nation to demand the release of yet to be counted documents (which according to plan should all be released, and therefore counted, by Oct. this year).

Quite a bit of new information has come out, due in part to the Church Committee (a result of the Watergate affair), the House Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA] (a result of the Zapruder film of the murder becoming public), and the Assassination Records Review Board [ARRB] (in response to Oliver Stone's film JFK) - more previously 'secret' material has become available to researchers and historians.

And what have we learned? We now know for sure that there was a conspiracy to keep us from knowing- of that we can be sure.

That's true.

It's very curious that even decades later various government entities take time out from their disinformation campaigns, assassinating leaders, and overthrowing governments to derail a domestic investigation into the Kennedy affair.

Maybe it's their hobby to pervert the course of justice, since they couldn't have any possible involvement.

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:The paper is wrong.

And I am being sarcastic about anyone citing this shit paper.

Yes. The paper is wrong. However it does not, at all, in any way, follow that if the reasoning of the paper was correct it would be futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

Yes. As I pointed out in another post - sometimes the 'point' of keeping activities secret is to prevent disruption of plans as they are carried out or delay knowledge of activities until some future time.

That the paper claims that a conspiracy involving more than a hundred people could be kept for a hundred years would seem to be an admission that any number of conspiracies could be kept secret until nobody gives a shit anymore.

You're talking incredibly obliquely. You know what, forget it.

Thommo wrote:You're talking incredibly obliquely. You know what, forget it.

Forget what?

Don't you find it interesting that this 'study' proves a conspiracy involving 125 people could be kept totally secret until we and our children are all dead?

That maybe our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will finally know the truth about what happened during the time we could actually have done something about it?

That is awesome!

proudfootz wrote:

Thommo wrote:You're talking incredibly obliquely. You know what, forget it.

Forget what?

Don't you find it interesting that this 'study' proves a conspiracy involving 125 people could be kept totally secret until we and our children are all dead?

No, because the methods of the study are bogus. I'm not reasoning that from conclusions though.

proudfootz wrote:That maybe our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will finally know the truth about what happened during the time we could actually have done something about it?

That is awesome!

Umm, what? This doesn't have the first thing to do with what we were talking about.

The study is bollocks, but the things you were saying are not consequences of the study. That you find them ridiculous is neither here nor there, it's not a good way to debunk, it's not a rational way to reason or think. The paper does not say or imply that it is "futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations".

When I said "forget it", I meant "this is already clear, I don't see why we should talk about it any more".

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Thommo wrote:You're talking incredibly obliquely. You know what, forget it.

Forget what?

Don't you find it interesting that this 'study' proves a conspiracy involving 125 people could be kept totally secret until we and our children are all dead?

No, because the methods of the study are bogus. I'm not reasoning that from conclusions though.

OK.

I agree the study is bogus.

I don't think anyone really believes in it- except some find it a useful fraud to use as a stick to beat up on 'conspiracy theorists'.

proudfootz wrote:That maybe our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will finally know the truth about what happened during the time we could actually have done something about it?

That is awesome!

Umm, what? This doesn't have the first thing to do with what we were talking about.

I may have been talking about more than you thought i was talking about.

The study is bollocks, but the things you were saying are not consequences of the study.

It's not even clear what the point of this 'study' is supposed to be.

That if you keep your conspiracy under 125 participants you and your children will all be dead before the truth comes out?

That you find them ridiculous is neither here nor there, it's not a good way to debunk, it's not a rational way to reason or think. The paper does not say or imply that it is "futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations".

How many employees does a covert organization like the CIA have? 20K or so?

It stands to reason that based on this model they can't keep anything secret for long.

Obviously, I am poking gentle fun at fuckwits who take this study seriously.The guy is obviously a charlatan who is basically trolling everyone by claiming he has 'mathematically proved' something or other.

When I said "forget it", I meant "this is already clear, I don't see why we should talk about it any more".

So long as we are in agreement that this 'study' is bogus and deserving of contempt and mockery, we needn't feel like there's any unresolved issues here.

wrong forum

romansh wrote:wrong forum

Yes, if there is a pseudo-science section, this subject should be listed there.

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:That maybe our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will finally know the truth about what happened during the time we could actually have done something about it?

That is awesome!

Umm, what? This doesn't have the first thing to do with what we were talking about.

I may have been talking about more than you thought i was talking about.

Talking to you is like having teeth pulled. You said, one thing, here it is:-

proudfootz wrote:By the reasoning of this paper, it is futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

The CIA? Waste of money. All the 'secrets' we're trying to find out will come out naturally by themselves. And they sure as hell can't keep any secrets.

Send those useless fucks out to fill potholes, or pick up trash, or something practical.

This does not say more than it says. It says that "by the reasoning of the paper" it follows that [blah blah blah]. But the things you say follow from the paper, don't. The paper says nothing about the utility of finding out about security threats a bit sooner, or preserving secrets years longer. It explicitly assumes that no external investigations are at play because it regards that as a factor that can alter the results. It's simply talking about sampling to a particular confidence level from a poisson distribution, which does not guarantee anything, or carry any implications for every CIA operation being known about by every employee of the CIA, or whatever else you have started going on about now (and you might note, if you'd even read the article that a conspiracy of over 400,000 would be forecast to last 3.7 years to whatever confidence level it was they were talking about).

You may well be right about some other completely unconnected point, or wrong. But that's neither here nor there. The above statement is wrong whether the methods used in the paper are good or bad. The above statement is wrong whether every conspiracy theory ever was true, or whether every conspiracy theory ever was false.

In both the case of what you're saying, and what the paper is saying I'm talking about methods. About saying something "follows" or "is shown" when it's not.

I hope that's clear now.

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:That maybe our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will finally know the truth about what happened during the time we could actually have done something about it?

That is awesome!

Umm, what? This doesn't have the first thing to do with what we were talking about.

I may have been talking about more than you thought i was talking about.

Talking to you is like having teeth pulled. You said, one thing, here it is:-

proudfootz wrote:By the reasoning of this paper, it is futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

The CIA? Waste of money. All the 'secrets' we're trying to find out will come out naturally by themselves. And they sure as hell can't keep any secrets.

Send those useless fucks out to fill potholes, or pick up trash, or something practical.

This does not say more than it says. It says that "by the reasoning of the paper" it follows that [blah blah blah]. But the things you say follow from the paper, don't. The paper says nothing about the utility of finding out about security threats a bit sooner, or preserving secrets years longer. It explicitly assumes that no external investigations are at play because it regards that as a factor that can alter the results. It's simply talking about sampling to a particular confidence level from a poisson distribution, which does not guarantee anything, or carry any implications for every CIA operation being known about by every employee of the CIA, or whatever else you have started going on about now (and you might note, if you'd even read the article that a conspiracy of over 400,000 would be forecast to last 3.7 years to whatever confidence level it was they were talking about).

You may well be right about some other completely unconnected point, or wrong. But that's neither here nor there. The above statement is wrong whether the methods used in the paper are good or bad. The above statement is wrong whether every conspiracy theory ever was true, or whether every conspiracy theory ever was false.

In both the case of what you're saying, and what the paper is saying I'm talking about methods. About saying something "follows" or "is shown" when it's not.

I hope that's clear now.

Clear - thanks for taking the time to explain what you were trying to say.

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

THWOTH wrote:The conspiracy theory is a teleological construct, taking at least two sources of information and creating a connecting narrative of necessity, reasoned out of loneliness and custard.

And yet, inexplicitly, such oddly conceived custard can be capable of shaking the trunk of a conspiracy with sufficient vigor to cause revelations of the enterprise to float among us like cherry blossoms on a fresh spring morning.

Who could have imagined that wild speculations about umbrella man, Oswald impersonators, and reverberations from the grassy knoll would lead to a movie bundling a plethora of theories into a fractured pot pie that would rouse the nation to demand the release of yet to be counted documents (which according to plan should all be released, and therefore counted, by Oct. this year).

Quite a bit of new information has come out, due in part to the Church Committee (a result of the Watergate affair), the House Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA] (a result of the Zapruder film of the murder becoming public), and the Assassination Records Review Board [ARRB] (in response to Oliver Stone's film JFK) - more previously 'secret' material has become available to researchers and historians.

hmmm. I searched and couldn't find any thread in this area of the forum dealing with the Watergate conspiracy. Maybe we need one ....

John Platko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

John Platko wrote:

THWOTH wrote:The conspiracy theory is a teleological construct, taking at least two sources of information and creating a connecting narrative of necessity, reasoned out of loneliness and custard.

And yet, inexplicitly, such oddly conceived custard can be capable of shaking the trunk of a conspiracy with sufficient vigor to cause revelations of the enterprise to float among us like cherry blossoms on a fresh spring morning.

Who could have imagined that wild speculations about umbrella man, Oswald impersonators, and reverberations from the grassy knoll would lead to a movie bundling a plethora of theories into a fractured pot pie that would rouse the nation to demand the release of yet to be counted documents (which according to plan should all be released, and therefore counted, by Oct. this year).

Quite a bit of new information has come out, due in part to the Church Committee (a result of the Watergate affair), the House Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA] (a result of the Zapruder film of the murder becoming public), and the Assassination Records Review Board [ARRB] (in response to Oliver Stone's film JFK) - more previously 'secret' material has become available to researchers and historians.

hmmm. I searched and couldn't find any thread in this area of the forum dealing with the Watergate conspiracy. Maybe we need one ....

Well, since it involves a covert activity involving cooperation between at least two people, it will need to be segregated into the 'conspiracy theories' ghetto.

I'm likely to find most people are 'conspiracy theorists' regarding this episode of history as well...

Just to speculate about the 'findings' of this pseudo-science paper...

If 125 people on the 'inside' of a conspiracy can keep it secret 100 years (until we are all dead), could these 125 conspirators (they'd have to rent a hall to have their meetings!) involve others who would be unaware that it was a conspiracy?

Consider an authoritarian hierarchical organization: couldn't someone's boss get the people under him to 'follow orders' and thus contribute to the plot without their being aware that it was a plot or know the purpose of whatever action they were ordered to take?

This could conceivably expand the numbers of people who 'participate' in a covert action (moving it forward) yet restrict the number of people who could 'confess' about it (since they didn't know the true purpose of their actions).

For the moon landing stuff: you'd get a lot of people doing their best to actually sent people to the moon.
Which then happened.

Or are you talkng about a "vacuum cleaner factory" scenario?
Where one emploee steals a different part every day, but no matter how he puts then together at home: it always assembles into a machine gun.

Thommo wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

proudfootz wrote:That maybe our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will finally know the truth about what happened during the time we could actually have done something about it?

That is awesome!

Umm, what? This doesn't have the first thing to do with what we were talking about.

I may have been talking about more than you thought i was talking about.

Talking to you is like having teeth pulled. You said, one thing, here it is:-

proudfootz wrote:By the reasoning of this paper, it is futile to have millions of dollars invested in covert operations.

The CIA? Waste of money. All the 'secrets' we're trying to find out will come out naturally by themselves. And they sure as hell can't keep any secrets.

Send those useless fucks out to fill potholes, or pick up trash, or something practical.

This does not say more than it says. It says that "by the reasoning of the paper" it follows that [blah blah blah]. But the things you say follow from the paper, don't. The paper says nothing about the utility of finding out about security threats a bit sooner, or preserving secrets years longer. It explicitly assumes that no external investigations are at play because it regards that as a factor that can alter the results.

It's simply talking about sampling to a particular confidence level from a poisson distribution, which does not guarantee anything, or carry any implications for every CIA operation being known about by every employee of the CIA, or whatever else you have started going on about now (and you might note, if you'd even read the article that a conspiracy of over 400,000 would be forecast to last 3.7 years to whatever confidence level it was they were talking about).


You may well be right about some other completely unconnected point, or wrong. But that's neither here nor there. The above statement is wrong whether the methods used in the paper are good or bad. The above statement is wrong whether every conspiracy theory ever was true, or whether every conspiracy theory ever was false.

In both the case of what you're saying, and what the paper is saying I'm talking about methods. About saying something "follows" or "is shown" when it's not.

I hope that's clear now.

Just to make a small note about the bolded bit - where does the author of the shit paper under discussion validate the numbers of people he imagines would be required to pull off the Moon Hoax thingy? The author estimates 411,000 NASA employees. Is he including the mailroom clerks? The secretaries? The janitors?

Or does he assume 'everybody' from top to bottom must be 'in on it' because it makes a better headline?

Not trying to single you out as if you know the answer - just that your remark about whether every last person in an organization knows everything that institution's leadership is up to seems like it could be another major flaw in the 'methodology' of this paper.

I don't know. And honestly I don't think it's worth looking into, the model is completely bogus as far as I'm concerned, even if there's almost certainly a kernel of truth regarding how tough it would be to force people to keep quiet if they felt the deception was deeply wrong.