JADE HELM 15
13 Jul 2015, 6:40 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
Conspiracy is a real thing. It just means two or more people working together toward a goal.
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
Um, what was the question again? Gotta admit my eyes are glazed over.
Two people working together toward a goal is usually called "team work".
_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.
13 Jul 2015, 6:44 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
Conspiracy is a real thing. It just means two or more people working together toward a goal.
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
The Manhattan Project was a grand conspiracy where tens of thousands of individuals knew at least part of the facts. It wasn't disclose until after its conspirators decided to do so. Same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the Guatemala syphilis experiment, ... um, should I go on?
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
13 Jul 2015, 6:50 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Conspiracy is a real thing. It just means two or more people working together toward a goal.
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
The Manhattan Project was a grand conspiracy where tens of thousands of individuals knew at least part of the facts. It wasn't disclose until after its conspirators decided to do so. Same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the Guatemala syphilis experiment, ... um, should I go on?
13 Jul 2015, 6:52 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
in particular, with jade helm, i have a hard time swallowing the proposition that our own soldiers are going to invade our own territory
Then why are they training to do just that? What part of Miami (which will be included in the Jade Helm 15 exercise) resembles an Islamic community? For that matter, what part of San Diego (which will also be included)? Phoenix? Austin, Texas? Dallas? Albuquerque? No, the training is very much Americanized. So, why? And, remember, the largest single reason for the exercise is to determine how noticeable its activities will be to citizens. Why is the exercise using blank ammunition and explosives? At least 64.5 percent of Utah is "managed" (read "owned") by the U.S. government. Would that be enough land to train for just about anything imaginable? Apparently not, according to the government. Again, why?!?
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
13 Jul 2015, 6:52 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Conspiracy is a real thing. It just means two or more people working together toward a goal.
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
The Manhattan Project was a grand conspiracy where tens of thousands of individuals knew at least part of the facts. It wasn't disclose until after its conspirators decided to do so. Same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the Guatemala syphilis experiment, ... um, should I go on?
From what Feynman wrote about the compartmentalization of the Manhattan Project -- and at the time he was a pretty junior scientist - so many people didn't really know what they were working on that it got very dangerous.
Also, as i understand it, a preponderance of physicists who weren't involved had a pretty good idea what was going on. The air of secrecy about it, is overblown.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident falls into the category of things adequately explained by incompetence.
Your later examples i don't think can be classed as grand conspiracies
13 Jul 2015, 6:53 pm
Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Conspiracy is a real thing. It just means two or more people working together toward a goal.
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
Talk of grand conspiracy, particularly grand conspiracies that require a large number of people to keep the same secrets, or which would require some members to be super-competent, can generally be rejected out of hand.
Take for example, moon landing deniers. The sheer number of people involved in the lunar missions - tens of thousands of people - and not a single one of them spills the beans?
The Manhattan Project was a grand conspiracy where tens of thousands of individuals knew at least part of the facts. It wasn't disclose until after its conspirators decided to do so. Same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the Guatemala syphilis experiment, ... um, should I go on?
Why, indeed! What are your wonderings?
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
13 Jul 2015, 6:54 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
in particular, with jade helm, i have a hard time swallowing the proposition that our own soldiers are going to invade our own territory
It was on the radio here last week that more American troops are being cut - 40,000 US soldiers over the next 2 years. Military generals have already been cut with some being from the nuclear program. The Jade Helm is supposed to be including Chinese and Russian armies and having them work together with our armies. The only reason I can think of for that is a one world government (which has been talked about for a while now). I'm not crazy. I've been keeping up on all of this for about the past 6 yrs. All I ask is for people to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.
13 Jul 2015, 6:56 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
...Your later examples i don't think can be classed as grand conspiracies
The syphilis experiments hardly operated in a vacuum. Both would require cabinet-level authorization. Intentionally infecting U.S. citizens and foreign citizens in their own nation is pretty damned grand, in my opinion. How many U.S. government staffers would "need to know" about such an operation to make it work? The bean counters alone could tell horror stories, I am certain.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
13 Jul 2015, 7:00 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
Fugu wrote:
why would the US military need to pretend to take over certain states when it could probably do that already(ignoring the fact that they're not supposed to fight on local soil.)
Why, indeed! What are your wonderings?
13 Jul 2015, 7:10 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
...Your later examples i don't think can be classed as grand conspiracies
The syphilis experiments hardly operated in a vacuum. Both would require cabinet-level authorization. Intentionally infecting U.S. citizens and foreign citizens in their own nation is pretty damned grand, in my opinion. How many U.S. government staffers would "need to know" about such an operation to make it work? The bean counters alone could tell horror stories, I am certain.
I actually expect that hardly anybody actually had to know that they were infecting people with syphilis.
As for the bean counters, the us military is notoriously bad at counting. the bean counters probably had no idea what the line items were about, if they even bothered to have more than one.
13 Jul 2015, 7:37 pm
An example of how accurately our military beans are counted, in the modern era, with computers and spreadsheets:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... LQ20131118
Anyway, for the syphilis thing, I expect that you'd need maybe 5 people to conceive of and get approval for the experiment.
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people.
Hardly on the same scale as the apollo missions. Tens of thousands of people working on actual Stuff, and they might suspect something amiss if the stuff they are working on looks like busy work.
13 Jul 2015, 8:16 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
...for the syphilis thing, I expect that you'd need maybe 5 people to conceive of and get approval for the experiment.
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people....
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people....
All true. And, for the Guatamala experiment, that would work for the two or three years (1946-1948) without much fanfare. But, the Tuskegee experiment persisted for 40 or 41 years (1932-1972). Many more people would need to be involved as staffers moved into and out of the experiment's realm.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
13 Jul 2015, 8:25 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
...for the syphilis thing, I expect that you'd need maybe 5 people to conceive of and get approval for the experiment.
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people....
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people....
All true. And, for the Guatamala experiment, that would work for the two or three years (1946-1948) without much fanfare. But, the Tuskegee experiment persisted for 40 or 41 years (1932-1972). Many more people would need to be involved as staffers moved into and out of the experiment's realm.
13 Jul 2015, 8:33 pm
Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
...for the syphilis thing, I expect that you'd need maybe 5 people to conceive of and get approval for the experiment.
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people....
You'd expect that whoever's big idea it was would be on the ground running it, but it might not be necessary, particularly if that person was not a scientist.
Acquiring pathogen samples for research doesn't raise any eyebrows and need not be secret.
Change some labels, maybe just put them in a new carton, and the field techs need not know what they are administering. In fact, it would be normal in a research scenario for the field techs to not be told, particularly if they expected to be just labor within a double-blind study.
Nursing staff wouldn't need to be told anything about syphilis, in fact you get better research results if the people doing the observation are merely given a strict set of criteria to observe and report.
So you need someone to have an idea, someone to plan the experiment, someone to order the specific materials, someone to arrange for research subjects and staff. A lot of these can be the same people. Sure someone has to approve it, perhaps at the cabinet level, so you get a few people involved.
But really it could be one s**thead general, one actual scientist who doesn't care about brown people (not hard to come by back in the day), and a compelling argument for someone in leadership who also doesn't care about brown people....
All true. And, for the Guatamala experiment, that would work for the two or three years (1946-1948) without much fanfare. But, the Tuskegee experiment persisted for 40 or 41 years (1932-1972). Many more people would need to be involved as staffers moved into and out of the experiment's realm.
Hehe. I believe that conspiracies exist whether or not they are noticed. In several instances, people do know all about them.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
13 Jul 2015, 8:56 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
And yet, all conspiracies were, at one time, conspiracy theories.
Wrong.
So what this all comes down to is this: A conspiracy theory is an irrational, instinctual thought process which puts to the fore the greatest fears in our minds. The conspiracy theorist is deluded into believing that the fear they feel is the fear everyone else feels, and they find avenues of opening up the dark recesses of our minds to the "truth". The rational skeptic is that person who intellectually approaches a problem, investigates the problem rationally, deduces a conclusion, and affirms or rejects the hypothesis. The skeptic and the conspiracy theorist are, for all intents and purposes, in each others company, but the fine line that separates them is ultimately logic. They both hear hoofbeats, but only one thinks horses.
Source: http://observationdeck.kinja.com/the-fi ... 1607326065
_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)
Last edited by RoadRatt on 13 Jul 2015, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
