So apparently scientists have set up a formula that takes in account a lot of factors and should give an estimate of the time it would take for a conspiracy to be revealed.
It seems most of the big conspiracies, like the fake moon landing and the misinformation about vaccines, wouldn't have lasted more than approximately 3 to 4 years.
Now, despite the article trying to debunk conspiracies with a formula, it doesn't rule out the existence of them. It even gives some estimates of the maximum number of people needed for a conspiracy to be secret with the lowest change of being revealed.
" He then looked at the maximum number of people who could take part in an intrigue in order to maintain it. For a plot to last five years, the maximum was 2521 people. To keep a scheme operating undetected for more than a decade, fewer than 1000 people can be involved. A century-long deception should ideally include fewer than 125 collaborators. Even a straightforward cover-up of a single event, requiring no more complex machinations than everyone keeping their mouth shut, is likely to be blown if more than 650 people are accomplices. "
I find this interesting information, and would like to hear your opinion on this matter. What conspiracies do you believe in, do you feel that conspiracy is slightly debunked after reading this article?
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160126162330.htm
shameless self bump
Makes sense, more mouths more whistleblowers.
>do you feel that conspiracy is slightly debunked
I don't understand what you mean. It depends on what conspiracy it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mhPaUL3Uc
>>17333648
Yeah that sentence is a bit weird, it was supposed to folow up on the first question, let me repost that question:
What conspiracies do you believe in and do you feel that the large conspiracy you believe in is slightly debunked after reading this article?
And it does make sense, the thing is that a lot of people don't take in to account the large amount of people needed to keep a huge conspiracy secret. I find that interesting and would like to know if reading rational information like this does anything with the believes you have.
>>17333648
Yeah, that sentence got a bit messed up, let me rewrite it: What conspiracies do you believe in and do you feel that the believe you hold about these conspiracies are slightly changed?
Because the thing is, a lot of people don't take in to account the large amount of people needed to keep a huge conspiracy secret. I find that interesting and would like to know if reading rational information like this does anything with the believes you have.
>>17333677
meh double post....
>>17333589
But they have leaks all the time, they're just marginalized as fringe elements and ignored by the mainstream
Jesus, how naïve can you be?
insiders blow the whistle all the time though (cough snowden). They either get dismissed as loonies or marked as traitors
I feel as if the whole "mass shootings are done by government built lunatics" conspiracy could easily stay a secret. Have a team of 100 or so people in the know. Factor in that their minds may be altered by the government as well. It could be done.
>>17333749
This, and, the 'formula' takes no account of the vested interests of the people who are part of the conspiracy; those who have a monetary or job-security reason to say nothing. And there are powerful safety structures put in place to facilitate the marginalisation of the 'lunatic fringe'. Look at what happened, and is continuing to happen, to Andrew Wakefield and anyone else who raises concerns over vaccines.
The point of conspiracies is that you aren't just dealing with one set of people with one set of responses. At the top or the heart of the conspiracy you have those who are going to do what they do regardless. Then there are the loyal followers, in it for the money or the power. Then a tier of the 'wilfully blind' who may have a sense of something not being quite right, but don't ask questions or rock the boat to protect their own security. In corporate structures, anyone not in these groups is unlikely to be found far enough up the food chain to really know what's going on. This leaves the morally inclined largely out of the picture. Look at who the whistleblowers are; they're not top management, they're usually some little guy in some backwater department.
>>17333648
In short: Gimes is an idiot, has a personal bias or is a shill. You can get any numbers you want assuming all the wrong data.
Enigma, WWII Nazi cryptography decoders, 12000 people involved. Secret kept for 25 years after the war. This alone blows his math out of the water.
See the archive for the same thread.
>>>17302126
