Conspiracy Theories, and Number of People Involved

[INRM]

I have heard it often mentioned that conspiracy theories are often flawed because of the number of people that would be involved.

I've thought about this, and when it comes to secrecy, and "need to know", it could easily be possible for hundreds of people to be involved in a conspiracy, with only a few people on the top actually knowing the full details and directing everything, where most of the players only know very small bits and pieces, just what they need to know. In many cases, so little as to make it virtually impossible for most of them to piece everything together.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've thought about this, and when it comes to secrecy, and "need to know", it could easily be possible for hundreds of people to be involved in a conspiracy, with only a few people on the top actually knowing the full details and directing everything,

Still doesn't work, INRM. I wouldn't even call that a nice try.

To apply this to an existing conspiracy theory, ten thousand ninjas plant demolition charges and pre-cutting structural supports in a perfectly good, actively used office tower would probably know full well that the are planting demo charges and cutting supports.

They may not know that they larger plan is to give the US a reason to invade a couple of podunk third world countries, but as soon as they turned on the news on September 11th, 2001 the ten thousand ninjas would know that they are the ones who blew up those buildings.

This kind of reasoning says more about your desperation to justify your worldview in the face of logic and evidence than it does about the viability of saturday morning cartoon plots.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have heard it often mentioned that conspiracy theories are often flawed because of the number of people that would be involved.

I've thought about this, and when it comes to secrecy, and "need to know", it could easily be possible for hundreds of people to be involved in a conspiracy, with only a few people on the top actually knowing the full details and directing everything, where most of the players only know very small bits and pieces, just what they need to know. In many cases, so little as to make it virtually impossible for most of them to piece everything together.

Ahh... the standard "compartmentalization" excuse you conspiracy theorists love to not think beyond.

It's particularly stupid when it comes to the Moon landing conspiracies for a few reasons because, if true...

• All these small groups of people worked extremely hard, spending tens of millions of dollars, to produce technology and machines that actually accomplish the goal put to them. In the end, however... none of it was actually used. What a waste.
• These men and women are extremely bright. They knew the details of the obstacles they needed to overcome, independent of any "higher ups" feeding them information. That's why they were hired. They'd know if the result of their hard work was inadequate.
• All of them knew they were working toward putting a man on the Moon.
• And if they didn't, most of them would be able to piece it together afterward.

And that last part is the killer. Even if these individuals and small groups had no clue what the bigger picture was that they were helping to work toward, the "compartmentalization" excuse must assume that not one of these intelligent, hard working individuals connected their work to the final event.

 

[Horatius]

And that last part is the killer. Even if these individuals and small groups had no clue what the bigger picture was that they were helping to work toward, the "compartmentalization" excuse must assume that not one of these intelligent, hard working individuals connected their work to the final event.

The "compartmentalization" notion would work well for aspects of the conspiracy that would, in the absence of some knowledge of the conspiracy, look fairly normal. Asking police officers to transfer a prisoner, asking a courier to deliver documents, asking an intelligence analyst to look at these documents and not those documents are all actions that they would expect to be asked to do, and would not seem unusual to most people. There are things in the world that are secret, and most people involved in government agencies understand that.

It falls apart when you realize that any "real" conspiracy (as envisioned by the typical CTist) must include several actions that could not possibly seem normal. Asking an avionics tech to wire a particular plane for remote control is not a normal part of his job, and he'll remember that. Asking a building technician to attach a few hundred "things" to the columns of a building isn't normal, he'll remember that. Asking the people sorting the rubble to forget they saw the remnants of bombs isn't normal, they'll remember that.

There are so many of these sorts of actions needed, you'll never find enough people willing to keep quiet about it to get them all done.

This "compartmentalization" notion is just another example of CTists not being able or willing to consider the implications of their beliefs.

 

[timhau]

There are so many of these sorts of actions needed, you'll never find enough people willing to keep quiet about it to get them all done.

You're severely underestimating our loyalty to the NWO.

 

[Soily]

During world war 2 in englad there was a top secret code breaking facility called bletchly park. There, the German enigma cipher was broken using one of the earliest programmable computers, probably shortening the war by months. Despite thousands of people working there, all of this was completely unknown for over 30 years, until the story was revealed in the 1970s. 1000s of people kept the secret for decades, not even telling their families in many cases. So of course this tired old canard spouted by the self styled debunkers is nonsense. Not only do 'conspiracy theories' not require many people, if they do it's perfectly possible for a large number of people to keep a secret.

 

[Sledge]

Ah, so all the people who were part of the 9/11 conspiracy or the moon landing hoax were in on it? I see. And what motivation do these thousands* of people have for staying silent?

*low estimate in both cases.

 

[arthwollipot]

During world war 2 in englad there was a top secret code breaking facility called bletchly park. There, the German enigma cipher was broken using one of the earliest programmable computers, probably shortening the war by months. Despite thousands of people working there, all of this was completely unknown for over 30 years, until the story was revealed in the 1970s. 1000s of people kept the secret for decades, not even telling their families in many cases. So of course this tired old canard spouted by the self styled debunkers is nonsense. Not only do 'conspiracy theories' not require many people, if they do it's perfectly possible for a large number of people to keep a secret.

Way to miss the point.

The point is not that conspiracies don't need to be large, or that lots of people can't keep a secret. The point is that the spread and scope of some claimed conspiracies (such as 9/11 and the Moon landing) make them entirely implausible.

The Bletchley Park "conspiracy" was a matter of national security, defending the homeland against attack. The secret was kept by honest patriots. The claimed 9/11 "conspiracy" was a government secretly planning an attack on its own people. What honest patriot would seriously keep a secret like that?

 

[Soily]

Ah, so all the people who were part of the 9/11 conspiracy or the moon landing hoax were in on it? I see. And what motivation do these thousands* of people have for staying silent?

*low estimate in both cases.

I don't buy either of those, in my opinion, pretty silly conspiracy theories, but not because of the number of people involved argument.

The cover up in the jfk case involved hundreds, if not thousands of people, but I think few if any were part of a conspiracy. There are different reasons to cover things up beyond trying to conceal criminal activity. In the jfk case, the coverup was a mixture of institutional prejudice, a fear the incident could open a pandoras box or escalate to war and the general tendency of state institutions to not wanting to air their dirty linen in public.

 

[Soily]

Way to miss the point.

The point is not that conspiracies don't need to be large, or that lots of people can't keep a secret. The point is that the spread and scope of some claimed conspiracies (such as 9/11 and the Moon landing) make them entirely implausible.

The Bletchley Park "conspiracy" was a matter of national security, defending the homeland against attack. The secret was kept by honest patriots. The claimed 9/11 "conspiracy" was a government secretly planning an attack on its own people. What honest patriot would seriously keep a secret like that?

I don't believe for a second that 911 was a grand conspiracy and find most of these theories utterly preposterous. But I can certainly envisage a viable, if entirely imaginary scenario were it could have been run like a military or intelligence operation with perhaps 10s or hundreds of people directly involved.Both those bodies are inherently good at keeping secrets and when you factor in self incrimination it's not massively implausible that it could be kept secret. If it was left entirely to the Nazis I doubt we would have found out about the holocaust, as the participants were fully intent on keeping it totally secret.

911 theories are implausible for many reasons but I don't think the too many people argument is a particularly compelling one.

 

[arthwollipot]

911 theories are implausible for many reasons but I don't think the too many people argument is a particularly compelling one.

Personally I think that 9/11 could have been carried out by a conspiracy of the nine hijackers, plus two Al Qaeda contacts, including Bin Laden.

However, this is not (afaik) normally an argument against 9/11. It is often an argument against the Moon Landing Hoax, where it is far more applicable because it would have taken a very large number of people to pull off.

 

[Sledge]

I don't buy either of those, in my opinion, pretty silly conspiracy theories, but not because of the number of people involved argument.

The cover up in the jfk case involved hundreds, if not thousands of people, but I think few if any were part of a conspiracy. There are different reasons to cover things up beyond trying to conceal criminal activity. In the jfk case, the coverup was a mixture of institutional prejudice, a fear the incident could open a pandoras box or escalate to war and the general tendency of state institutions to not wanting to air their dirty linen in public.

I'm sorry, what? The case involved hundreds, if not thousands, of people, but only a few were part of a conspiracy? If the conspiracy was of a few people, how is it relevant to this discussion?

 

[Soily]

I'm sorry, what? The case involved hundreds, if not thousands, of people, but only a few were part of a conspiracy? If the conspiracy was of a few people, how is it relevant to this discussion?

Because the specious 'too many people' argument is often used in the jfk case. The argument as it goes is that for there to be a conspiracy to murder jfk, hundreds of people would have to be involved in said conspiracy. Which is false. 100s of people were involved in the cover-up, for a whole variety of reasons, but that's not the same thing.

And although the moon landing conspiracy is utterly ridiculous, a reasonable scenario can still be constructed that doesn't involve that many people. Hell if we're clever enough to go to the moon in the first place, we're clever enough to fake it and cover it up.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"We didn't intercept any messages on the attack at Pearl Harbor!"

It would take only one person to say "Yes, we did" for that to fall apart. EVERYBODY has to keep perfect silence forever if a conspiracy is going to work. This would require that everyone involved keep the same attitude toward the events forever, and that everyone involved agree with the handling of the event, not only at the time of the event, but forever after.

And forever is such a LONG time.

 

[SpitfireIX]

And although the moon landing conspiracy is utterly ridiculous, a reasonable scenario can still be constructed that doesn't involve that many people. Hell if we're clever enough to go to the moon in the first place, we're clever enough to fake it and cover it up.

Not true.

From clavius.org "Conspiracy - the problem of scale":

THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SCENARIO

At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.

This has two advantages. First, it is well known that the probability of keeping a secret diminishes rapidly as the number of people who know the secret increases even slightly. So by keeping this number to an absolute minimum you'll reduce the number of people who can spill the beans. Second, the NASA employees and contractors will go to their graves staunchly asserting that NASA did what it said it did.

The big disadvantage is that the contractors now believe they must actually build the space hardware. Grumman must actually believe it is building a lunar lander, North American must actually build a command module, Boeing and others must actually believe they are building a moon-capable rocket. Integration teams from all these companies must make the products work together. Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work.

These engineers are not dummies. The whole reason NASA hires them to build its spaceships is because they have the expertise to do it. And so when NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar lander, it knows that Grumman engineers are going to go out and discover for themselves just what problems are involved in landing on the moon, and then proceed to solve them. If NASA executives are bent on fooling everyone then they couldn't care less if Grumman succeeds. But Grumman would care. And the NASA quality control people would care. If Grumman falls short, Grumman will know it, and so will the NASA employees who inspect the work.

In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

 

[Horatius]

And although the moon landing conspiracy is utterly ridiculous, a reasonable scenario can still be constructed that doesn't involve that many people. Hell if we're clever enough to go to the moon in the first place, we're clever enough to fake it and cover it up.

The point you miss is that yes, the smart people could have faked the landing - but only if they were all in on it, and believed that faking was the right thing to do.

That was true of things like Bletchly Park and the Manhattan Project. The smart people wanted to keep the secret, because they were fighting the Nazis. What comparable motivation exists for the Moon landing hoax, or the JFK assassination?

 

[Soily]

"We didn't intercept any messages on the attack at Pearl Harbor!"

It would take only one person to say "Yes, we did" for that to fall apart. EVERYBODY has to keep perfect silence forever if a conspiracy is going to work. This would require that everyone involved keep the same attitude toward the events forever, and that everyone involved agree with the handling of the event, not only at the time of the event, but forever after.

And forever is such a LONG time.

People do come forward. Ignoring the truth of any particular theory, whistelblowers do come forward, but we have quite a well developed toolkit for for discredit those people.

And regarding any high level direct players in the conspiracy, it's self evidently absurd that those people are ever going to talk, unless they wanted to end their days in prison or the electric chair.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People do come forward. Ignoring the truth of any particular theory, whistelblowers do come forward, but we have quite a well developed toolkit for for discredit those people.

Yeah, it's called "the facts". If they can past the fact test, the conspiracy is blown.

And regarding any high level direct players in the conspiracy, it's self evidently absurd that those people are ever going to talk, unless they wanted to end their days in prison or the electric chair.

So, how many "high level" players are there in a conspiracy? All of them? Do only the high level players have the information needed to blow a conspiracy? Do they all put their own lives ahead of "the truth"? Do we automatically know they'll be executed if they turn "state's evidence"? Do they even have to be alive when they "tell the truth"? (Death bed confessions?)

 

[Soily]

Yeah, it's called "the facts". If they can past the fact test, the conspiracy is blown.

If the person coming forward is 'the fact', then that doesn't get us anywhere does it? You want to have it both ways, if no one comes forward then that stretches your credulity, but if they do come forward you want them to provide gotcha hard evidence, which is unlikely to exist (the Nazis of course didn't write all their plans for the holocaust down in black and white)

So, how many "high level" players are there in a conspiracy? All of them? Do only the high level players have the information needed to blow a conspiracy? Do they all put their own lives ahead of "the truth"? Do we automatically know they'll be executed if they turn "state's evidence"? Do they even have to be alive when they "tell the truth"? (Death bed confessions?)

Neither us know any of those things. I think it's reasonable to credit our hypothetical conspirators with some intelligence though, let's accept the possibility that they'd be clever enough to make sure any conspiracy contained the minimum number of participants possible and all those participants would be bound by shared guilt.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

let's accept the possibility that they'd be clever enough to make sure any conspiracy contained the minimum number of participants possible and all those participants would be bound by shared guilt.

No.