But it doesn’t stop there, because you also need absolute andperpetual secrecy, as any singular leak would threaten the entire endeavor.
While some singular leaks threaten conspiracies, most singular leaks are just ignored.
If you look at the question of whether or not the United States has alien spacecrafts there are a bunch of leaks that point in that direction but the public at large does not believe that the conspiracy exists.
In contrast, True Conspiracies™ like the atomic spies lack the nebulousness: Soviet Union / covert transmission of nuclear secrets / geopolitical advantage.
There are some theories that lack nebulousness but if you would have spoken in the 50′s about how Robert Moses organized the power that he has I would assume most of those descriptions would have a lot of nebulousness in them.
If you have a complex conspiracy and only know some of the subparts it’s likely going to seem nebulous.
Singular leaks can only be effective if coupled with evidence that you would rationally expect. Snowden’s singular leak was extremely effective, because he had the receipts to back up what he claimed. The UFO leaks have not been, for the opposite reason.
Nebulousness can be an indicator of a falsifiability fugitive, but it can also have innocent explanations as you point out.
Snowden could leak the way he did because he was a sysadmin which unlogged access to a lot of information which few people who were in on their conspiracy had. I don’t think anyone could again leak like that given that the NSA likely is no running software from Palantir that prevents a single person from access documents like that.
The lack of action when the first whistleblower wrote the FDA in the Ranbaxy saga would be a good example of what often comes out of a single whistleblower.
The SEC ignored the first complaints against Berny Madoff as well.
When it comes to nebulousness it reminds me on a line from Die Wahrheit und was wirklich passierte that asserts that most areas where we likely have conspiracies are very complex.
If you can make your conspiracy so complex that no prosecutor can explain it to a jury or journalist to their readers, the conspiracy is relatively immune from attacks.
Do you remember how banks conspired to change LIBOR rates to steal billions of dollars from people’s pensions and other places?
How much do you remember about the Ranbaxy conspiracy?
While some singular leaks threaten conspiracies, most singular leaks are just ignored.
If you look at the question of whether or not the United States has alien spacecrafts there are a bunch of leaks that point in that direction but the public at large does not believe that the conspiracy exists.
There are some theories that lack nebulousness but if you would have spoken in the 50′s about how Robert Moses organized the power that he has I would assume most of those descriptions would have a lot of nebulousness in them.
If you have a complex conspiracy and only know some of the subparts it’s likely going to seem nebulous.
I mostly agree with your points.
Singular leaks can only be effective if coupled with evidence that you would rationally expect. Snowden’s singular leak was extremely effective, because he had the receipts to back up what he claimed. The UFO leaks have not been, for the opposite reason.
Nebulousness can be an indicator of a falsifiability fugitive, but it can also have innocent explanations as you point out.
Snowden could leak the way he did because he was a sysadmin which unlogged access to a lot of information which few people who were in on their conspiracy had. I don’t think anyone could again leak like that given that the NSA likely is no running software from Palantir that prevents a single person from access documents like that.
The lack of action when the first whistleblower wrote the FDA in the Ranbaxy saga would be a good example of what often comes out of a single whistleblower.
The SEC ignored the first complaints against Berny Madoff as well.
When it comes to nebulousness it reminds me on a line from Die Wahrheit und was wirklich passierte that asserts that most areas where we likely have conspiracies are very complex.
If you can make your conspiracy so complex that no prosecutor can explain it to a jury or journalist to their readers, the conspiracy is relatively immune from attacks.
Do you remember how banks conspired to change LIBOR rates to steal billions of dollars from people’s pensions and other places?
How much do you remember about the Ranbaxy conspiracy?