Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The group shows a strong consensus that mathematical models demonstrated in the publication effectively undermine the plausibility of large conspiracies, as evidenced by phrases like 'mathematically impossible' and references to specific studies. The tone is analytical and often skeptical, with examples like moon landings and UFO secrets illustrating how extensive involvement makes conspiracies inherently unsustainable, which reinforces the article's core message.
Most discussions acknowledge the scientific and mathematical basis presented in the publication, supporting the conclusion that large conspiracies are unlikely to succeed.
Posts demonstrate high curiosity, referencing specific models, statistical analyses, and debates about conspiracy theories, showing active engagement in the topic.
Participants refer to concrete examples such as moon landings, UFO leak secrets, and government cover-ups, indicating substantive discussions rather than superficial responses.
The discourse influences perceptions by emphasizing the mathematical improbability of large conspiracies, thereby shaping critical thinking about such beliefs.
7 این نمونهها و البته معادلهی گریمز مؤید این واقعیت است که هرچند توطئهها و پنهانکاریهای وسیعی در جهان اتفاق میافتد، اما هیچکدام از آنها نمیتوانند زمان زیادی دوام بیاورند. منبع :
Concernant les complots, contrairement aux autres croyances, l'absence de preuve avec le temps devient de plus en plus probablement une preuve de l'absence : https://t.co/c4oXzufGdH https://t.co/H8b0PVk0Rv
An interesting read on why so many are persuaded by conspiracies: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs, by @drg1985 https://t.co/SANhFk030e
@EduEngineer @Kevin_McKernan @_DaCon @jjcouey Military secrets can and are kept under wraps for as long as necessary. A paper published a few yrs ago showing large scale conspiracies were doomed to failure was an absolute joke written by a paragon of useful idiocy. https://t.co/Ix0WZfoLZ7
@thereal_truther A favorite: https://t.co/Rf7ERRJcaL
Picture for the blocked “my brain is infinitely superior to yours” After this math *genius* can’t respond to…math
In this video, we analyze the real reasons why humans have not returned to the Moon since the Apollo missions. Key factors include NASA's budget constraints, political cuts, and emerging technological challenges that…
During an interview, Andrea Tosatto reiterated his controversial stance on the moon landing, labeling believers as misguided. In this video, astrophysicist Luca Perri joins to debunk Tosatto's claims, tackling the…
In this video, we explore the topics of cancer, HIV, and AIDS. Why do breakthroughs in cancer research often lead to inaction? We investigate the possibility that information is withheld and examine the implications of…
Why do so many people believe in conspiracy theories? This video explores how cognitive psychology and neuroscience shape our perception of reality, leading to belief in even the most absurd ideas. We will examine the…
@Spekul8tor @Peter_Fitz "climate hoax" LOL https://t.co/tcGtkN8PBA
@marcomackill @Oliviersanstom @bibinhafc @Damien75Thorn @lonnibesancon https://t.co/4URhMnDmoR source. Et ce n' est pas un truc du système étatique compagnie.
@d1b @kulchytsky Стаття Девіда Роберта Ґраймза "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs" (PLOS ONE, січень 2016) моделює ймовірність розкриття змов залежно від кількості учасників. Використовуючи історичні приклади (як PRISM NSA), автор розраховує, що великі змови (>1000 осіб) розкриваються за
@kulchytsky @grok, розкажи про що "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs" by David Robert Grimes, published in PLOS ONE in January 2016
@ShawnRyanShow https://t.co/VvQFWMPduI
RT @wagneregger: Concernant les complots, contrairement aux autres croyances, l'absence de preuve avec le temps devient de plus en plus pro…
Concernant les complots, contrairement aux autres croyances, l'absence de preuve avec le temps devient de plus en plus probablement une preuve de l'absence : https://t.co/c4oXzufGdH https://t.co/H8b0PVk0Rv
@PymPurnell Eventually. Just like conspiracies are usually exposed. You'll like this one: https://t.co/jxtTyC8Y8i
@Cach_cash22 @gioval87 @ManFlo59 @BrochuBruno @BlackBondPtv Oui, tout à fait. Il existe une étude qui propose un modèle mathématique établissant un lien entre le nombre de personnes impliquées dans un complot et le temps qu’il faudrait pour que ce complot soit révélé. Si je me trompe pas ⬇️ https://t.co/cFT1TNNKg9
Grimes, D. R. (2016). On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147905.
@114_99tm Tem uma fórmula para determinar plausibilidade de conspirações baseadas no tempo estimado do início, pessoas envolvidas e probabilidade de algum vazamento de provas cabais. Isso tudo explicado no artigo: https://t.co/YR55B9dHk3
@MattMarmoset @AngloColons @RupertLowe10 Here's somethig on conspiracies you might like, truth seeka https://t.co/jxtTyC8Y8i
@Claudio92436691 Según On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs (Grimes, 2016), una conspiración así con miles de personas habría sido filtrada en menos de 4 años. La estadística no miente, pero las teorías sí.
@cremieuxrecueil And such a conspiracy would unravel quickly. Corporations are filled with too many people to keep that sort of secret. The math nerds have already weighed in on this subject. https://t.co/PFp0bnPioB
@Manoul @mashirenko7 Сорри, математика говорит, что сторонники теорий заговора не правы, а ты пытаешься с помощью демагогии не убедить меня, что ты прав, а убедить, что я не прав, предполагая какие-то "неведомые" нефальсифицируемые допущения. Так не работает, см. вот Граймса https://t.co/765RFzhy7Z
@greg_ashman We know that conspiracies exist, because we've seen them exposed. We know that the government lies to us, to control us, but are never sure how at the time, o to what extent. I find this paper sheds some very useful light on the matter. https://t.co/jxtTyC8Y8i
@Bobstain_88 @b_z_p1 Oh, deepity! Time does blow conspiracies. As does the number of people involved in the cover-up. https://t.co/jxtTyC8Y8i
On The Viability Of Conspiratorial Beliefs... https://t.co/UOOMXM21Hy ... https://t.co/SRTdN4S5Eq
@Mini1776 @MALGIS31 @carldemaio "many cases that are not known" You mean those that exist only in your mind? A massive conspiracy to create fake voters.. that's a complete secret?? People who are as stupid as you REQUIRE anonymity. https://t.co/Kw4E8ipOpi
@WeiZhangAtmos There's a paper, "On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs", where the author proposed a probability model for how long a conspiracy could survive, based on data from actual conspiracies: https://t.co/o40i8HpjkZ If he was right, the lifespan of this one would be a few years.
@Krieger66362259 Aucun temoignage ni preuves pour un complot qui engage beaucoup de personnes et depuis 80 ans! La rationalité des complotistes est nulle https://t.co/Jxd3RAdr4v https://t.co/7RCB2XWheK
The #UFO "crash retrieval" secret leaked in the 80s (Roswell 1978 + Lazar 1989). The secret persisted because of an psychologically engineered "giggle factor" created by the CIA. So by that time, how many people had been involved in the program? 350? 400? https://t.co/CLhrKjrMkV https://t.co/cUreGNXFAS
@TheRISEofROD https://t.co/VvQFWMPduI
@TrendyNow1 @Glenfid9 @LiveFromBrexit @BillyZigouras Have you ever heard the phrase "3 people can keep a secret, only if 2 of them are dead"? there is actually a mathematical formula for how long a secret can be kept based on the number of people who know about it. https://t.co/yoxzfScBbd
@fidelispatre And you’re right regarding whistleblowers. Here’s a peer-reviewed study on that : https://t.co/RQDCqkngnp
@davidsalt2001 @MichaMWitkowsk1 @onebigmonkey @NASAhistory For Apollo, the evidence points overwhelmingly to success, not a hoax. Here’s the peer-reviewed paper https://t.co/RQDCqkngnp
@W4rtagLyon69FR @MaximeC26830907 @Fax1Fax @silvano_trotta Et on a des modélisations mathématiques de cette question :https://t.co/PJeZPASes0 Je précise que c'est loin d'être parfait et mérité d'être corrigé, mais c'est déjà une piste
@JonaSalKupper https://t.co/2X0cpdVpwD Aber die Geschwindigkeit, mit der das Geheimnis gelüftet wurde, ist erstaunlich, wenn man die Forschung zu diesem Thema zusammenfasst..
@esrtweet You need to read this https://t.co/tcGtkN8PBA
@Bob100Smith @AbsoluteGnosis @Know_More_News Indeed! https://t.co/lTRXTWG54t
@astropierre https://t.co/H8b0PVk0Rv
@realshocks @Caperloo5 @jeffsmith0000 @JimlikesBB @VinceGottalotta @Wantmy2dollars_ @JenCages @TraitortR @TreatHunterDog @LifeOnMarz7 @Silver_Strike @alshadowdancer @scottstocker4 @Bruh888888888 @CivilLost @FlattieLoverDeb @NatashaForTrump @deathbyorcas @MucusMucous1 @theProgEqualist @KirchoffSh62598 @MolaRamLinux @AIUnbreaded @Budleo_Morgan @bubba6186422393 @medwoman1 @randomizer88996 @DNAIntelligence @8BrianVogel4 @whagyjr @_Kel_Varnsen_ @cl1ntonserver @eanstrainserver @redkingdom986 @Synyster63 @TomSmit74870120 @laneisrad @Mary95342400 @RepublicanRehab @itisjustmebabe @TeekeeMon @FifthDonkey @_CapitalOffense @Sinner_Lilith @Karlton111 @isthishell25 @Krispi_Largo @MichalYouDoing @cbeckj @zum_Gipfel Your feelings vs science... https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@BillboardChris People mustn't have seen this study. More people in on the secret, the quicker it's exposed. https://t.co/Ppwmq9FNJ4
There's this equation you can use to see how likely a conspiracy/secret is to be revealed based on how many people are 'in' on it and how much time has passed: https://t.co/TeI2VskUj8 https://t.co/8T5Hjr9VSc
@FifthDonkey @CivilLost @cl1ntonserver @medwoman1 @DNAIntelligence @randomizer88996 @alshadowdancer @Wantmy2dollars_ @jeffsmith0000 @Synyster63 @LifeOnMarz7 @NatashaForTrump @TraitortR @TreatHunterDog @cbeckj @Bruh888888888 @_Kel_Varnsen_ @JenCages @Sinner_Lilith @itisjustmebabe @theProgEqualist @wildbillhkhk @zum_Gipfel @JimlikesBB @8BrianVogel4 @LatePaco @whagyjr @DiveEric @Krispi_Largo @NewfMom29 @txradioguy @MucusMucous1 @Budleo_Morgan @RandoThingies @phviking76 @SpaceWad @greatimp @TroubleReborn @VinceGottalotta @MolaRamLinux @scottstocker4 @nowherelsebuth @odktiger @Silver_Strike @ChubbsNShooter @TeekeeMon @skeeduu @ziggystard0gg1 @Karlton111 While interesting, I like this one better. It seems to "tie the whole room together" given our current range of topics... https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@ReelJustinLewis Quite literally impossible to fake. Just by mathematical odds. https://t.co/VvQFWMOFFa
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs | PLOS ONE https://t.co/VvQFWMPduI
@IamGrief @AgoristN Something like the holocaust would quite literally be impossible to fake. I have a daughter, and if I was him, I would have done exactly as him. https://t.co/VvQFWMOFFa
@RichGra11892932 @deezynutz69 Yeah not to mention the tens of thousands of people who watched the lift offs. The astronomers that witnessed the mid-course burns, the ham radio operators who listened in on communications and much more https://t.co/zvzj1QevIz
@obxsoldier @RobotPolisher It is statistically impossible that the moon landing was faked and covered up. Stop being an idiot. https://t.co/hfYnI5nvKU
@TheOfficial1984 https://t.co/oYegc0zl4h
@FrMatthewLC @BrandyZadrozny This has also been shown mathematically https://t.co/hFaOQ3QGDr
@xyzfredsmith @BrentLeeSDCIC @RobertKennedyJr @BGatesIsaPyscho And as time goes by and the numbers of conspirators increase, the likelihood of us knowing increases exponentially
@OnjobSpeed @MoradELHATTAB1 Pour ce qui est de la probabilité que TOUT LE MONDE soit toujours hyper compétent dans son poste, je pense que l'n peut partir sur le théorème de l'incompétence (théorème de peter). pour le reste : https://t.co/3cuqZGeVzQ
@Wantmy2dollars_ @Jerry11029355 @jeffsmith0000 @MucusMucous1 @It_Fraze @NewfMom29 @VinceGottalotta @NatashaForTrump @lemmabarkaloo @Sinner_Lilith @oltexmike @_Kel_Varnsen_ @Synyster63 @MolaRamLinux @Bruh888888888 @alshadowdancer @scottstocker4 @nowherelsebuth @odktiger @CivilLost @Silver_Strike @ChubbsNShooter @whagyjr @TeekeeMon @TraitortR @itisjustmebabe @8BrianVogel4 @TreatHunterDog @skeeduu @cbeckj @ziggystard0gg1 @Karlton111 @ZiggystardoggX @ziggystard0g1 @JimlikesBB @Budleo_Morgan @Sofie_Z1 @JenCages @medwoman1 @cl1ntonserver @MurphyYuiko @MistressRedWasp @theProgEqualist @RealDoctorT @_CapitalOffense @Krispi_Largo @harborguy64 @Jetson77 @elmo_slayer "talking points"? Bud, I'm just pointing out that what ya'll believe is nonsense based in pretty much nothing. If you applied this, everything ya'll think is happening would evaporate in a puff of logic. https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@yay_its_james Try looking at it from a skeptic’s perspective https://t.co/AJvQ4M1ylK
Just gonna put this here preemptively https://t.co/Rh2YNtd0gp
@SamSecGuy @LFP58222981 @mirwijn @dr_jon_l Non-dipshits are aware of the mathematical formula that predicts the amount of time a conspiracy can stay secret, based on the number of people involved. Yours would have a shelf-life of a few minutes, if it existed. https://t.co/LNvXpf80pH
@laurent_terre @ZippoJeje Je vous recommande la lecture des travaux de David Robert Grimes. Sur la faisabilité de garder un secret.. secret. https://t.co/McUAqFBFGq
@lacreepytv @Ahna_Capri_1977 @McDH_Alcasser @GePuntoPePunto 2) https://t.co/UIpWIAb2ad
@Atlanta50004 @HansMahncke Bye, non-expert conspiracist. https://t.co/UFy44iHLBv [https://t.co/0SVXxn3XXF] https://t.co/6ptBwJfzLK https://t.co/PakC4YRT4s [with: https://t.co/DwUzPe0a7G] https://t.co/eMvQaNqoOQ https://t.co/IjggfceGiH
@_everythingism @gadboit @ban_epp_gofroc @Alpharabius870 @Ayjchan He might be trying to make a point on cascade logic. But that wouldn't work because plenty of lab leak conspiracists engage in cascade logic. https://t.co/PakC4YRT4s [with: https://t.co/DwUzPe0a7G] https://t.co/EC6pHUOMuz https://t.co/eMvQaNqoOQ https://t.co/efy9VScmb8
@Elbelico88 @axl2028 @cituk_tun @arturiano33 @GuillermoMR1138 No le creas a él. https://t.co/1uDXEij4UW Y si sigues teniendo dudas, ve a Google y busca Google Scholar te metes al primer resultado de la busqueda y ahí buscas todo lo que quieras de tratamientos y posibles curas, si buscas en inglés obtienes mejores cosas.
@_everythingism @ban_epp_gofroc @gadboit @Alpharabius870 @Ayjchan Yup. That's how cascade logic works. See the same thing from other denialists/conspiracists such as AGW denialists, vaccine denialists, etc. https://t.co/PakC4YRT4s [with: https://t.co/DwUzPe0a7G] https://t.co/eMvQaNqoOQ https://t.co/8SsD9vH6ps
@canceledmouse Enjoy your block. And the paper you’re too dumb to respond to https://t.co/AJvQ4M10wc
Picture for the blocked “my brain is infinitely superior to yours” After this math *genius* can’t respond to…math
@canceledmouse @FillmoreWhite @TorySnyc @AllenDMartin @davideyoungmd @VickiCoyle10019 @MissAMD1962 @trillionofcells @higgsri @ChrisJohnsonMD @EdwardDS15 @Roper_Lab @GrouchoMarxis1 @dirk_fasshauer @FUDyou2 @cappsie @mcfunny @PatrickSquirrel @crabb_vicki @CaryDavid722 @Earthdriver @Monstercoyliar @smith_john55 @TMGFlorida @TheCrystalBrian @SkepticalMutant @ScooterScience @RndmStreetMedic @DebraBr81576310 @JordanA8156 @BlueLionBlog @ScotMAGA24 @vstefans @judysimpson222 @TheFrankmanMN @Apotheosis1974 @FrankDElia7 @iXeno @krebiozen @Anymous84861064 @Awithonelison @shallit43 @natedoromal @gavleeham @ToBornin @NewSeasonsSpa @mjtimber2 @Humans_R_Free I love how your argument is so lacking that you’ve reduced yourself to using Shezz and Helen’s nic name for me Keep grasping at fictional straws dipshit And while you’re at, this paper you can’t respond to https://t.co/AJvQ4M10wc
@canceledmouse @TorySnyc @AllenDMartin @davideyoungmd @FillmoreWhite @VickiCoyle10019 @MissAMD1962 @trillionofcells @higgsri @ChrisJohnsonMD @EdwardDS15 @Roper_Lab @GrouchoMarxis1 @dirk_fasshauer @FUDyou2 @cappsie @mcfunny @PatrickSquirrel @crabb_vicki @CaryDavid722 @Earthdriver @Monstercoyliar @smith_john55 @TMGFlorida @TheCrystalBrian @SkepticalMutant @ScooterScience @RndmStreetMedic @DebraBr81576310 @JordanA8156 @BlueLionBlog @ScotMAGA24 @vstefans @judysimpson222 @TheFrankmanMN @Apotheosis1974 @FrankDElia7 @iXeno @krebiozen @Anymous84861064 @Awithonelison @shallit43 @natedoromal @gavleeham @ToBornin @NewSeasonsSpa @mjtimber2 @Humans_R_Free Well, it’s seems you’re a bit more of an idiot than you let on Do tell me, what respected institution is your *work* published through?
RT @ThinkyTexan: @TheColonel8275 @SolInvictvs2 @lemmabarkaloo @TreatHunterDog @Silver_Strike @JeffJun80346519 @MurphyYuiko @CivilLost @Repu…
@TheColonel8275 @SolInvictvs2 @lemmabarkaloo @TreatHunterDog @Silver_Strike @JeffJun80346519 @MurphyYuiko @CivilLost @RepublicanRehab @SariellaForever @1961mcruzer @ZWV134 @Erections24x7 @kpopnquarantine @AggressiveDem @jeffsmith0000 @Bruh888888888 @cbeckj @PBunny000 @LadyOfTheOcean1 @RealDoctorT @TastyMorsel6 @OGApe12 @SeannonMcLeoud @northwest8969 @c_caul @melJsaysso @dedazz99090 @Jennie_SC1 @theSelfishMan @Vickie627 @TheRealDEDWF11 @theProgEqualist @AnnMaleficent @therealMJ2022 @medwoman1 @AstralTX @atriana @no81738923995 @LesterWikid @CZonkula57296 @JackWhoElse @Quin4Trump @BitSlappin851 @DravinMalis @DookusRoyal @VinceGottalotta @Retired_Mustang Because I care about making my point clear, and not being a ignorant bellend...I'd post something like this. Specificity AND there's no question about what my Actual point is... https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@breakfast_dogs @past_is_future @stuartjdneil @niemasd @mattwridley I don't consider non-expert paranoid ranting, cascade logic, etc. to be evidence. https://t.co/PakC4YRT4s [https://t.co/DwUzPe0a7G] https://t.co/hwDuOUjoSu https://t.co/ZX0ASnNO2V https://t.co/ypvSftj1Az
@jeffsmith0000 @Wantmy2dollars_ @IZMKS44 @giddy_bunny @AggressiveDem @OGApe12 @TastyMorsel6 @SariellaForever @PBunny000 @Budleo_Morgan @JeffJun80346519 @VinceGottalotta @TheColonel8275 @1961mcruzer @ZWV134 @SeannonMcLeoud @Erections24x7 @northwest8969 @Bruh888888888 @CivilLost @c_caul @RepublicanRehab @melJsaysso @dedazz99090 @LadyOfTheOcean1 @Jennie_SC1 @theSelfishMan @lemmabarkaloo @Vickie627 @MurphyYuiko @kpopnquarantine @TheRealDEDWF11 @theProgEqualist @AnnMaleficent @therealMJ2022 @medwoman1 @AstralTX @TreatHunterDog @atriana @no81738923995 @LesterWikid @CZonkula57296 @JackWhoElse @Quin4Trump @RealDoctorT @BitSlappin851 @cbeckj @Silver_Strike @DravinMalis @DookusRoyal It also happens when widespread infection mitigation efforts are successful. Only One of these situations Actually happened, and it's not the one you put up. Wanna know why yours is insane? https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@akafacehots https://t.co/5vRaw613mx
@PourlAmourdeDi2 @Le_Debateur_ @thomb1997F @Franck20270 Alors votre tableau , il est bien sympathique Mais y a plus sympa , c’est l’article dont il est issu. Je vous invite à le lire EN ENTIER. https://t.co/AELbNGL9T3
It is very hard to keep a conspiracy theory under wraps. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
@GaryJoh28120725 @bikinatroll @SlenderSkeptic @MagusMelanie @CallMeEOnly @BasqueTerra @keigh_see @DrMathsPhysics @AquaVelvaBoy @fastestfredy @penguinteamsix @WadesUnderworld @WoSco_2020 @StaleSonnen @mode23 @JaydeetheGuyNew @CollinOctantis @LiberalBama @DoubleDumas @LaikaAndYuri @Capt_Scorch @laughchem @Valuable2017 @JennWithTwoNs @dimamynedd @HoloBuzz @Tinman_73 @ivegotamuon @UnCastellsMes @J5_Project @Dwyertd @whoopsbuni @PoliticoCryzis @spotarse @badibulgator @tony_oliver @TBRagsdale1 @RealAceFox1 @Freak0nIine @DanielleKe69607 @CryptoRoast @Vox_my_ass Not flerf specifically, but close enough... https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@FlatEarthZone @MattWalshBlog https://t.co/VvQFWMOFFa Buy a telescope…
@Ernestonewage https://t.co/VvQFWMOFFa
@ElijahSchaffer https://t.co/VvQFWMOFFa
@markswisher @MSUpiper @BrowningMachine @TonyClimate @CNN @BBCNews @NPR @AndrewDessler It is mathematically impossible for a conspiracy the size needed for AGW to persist longer than 3 years. Enjoy your comforting fictions, princess. https://t.co/hqK32qk9b2
@TonyClimate Not interested, Tony. The science of AGW is clear. Here's some number stuff, which you'll also probably fail to comprehend. https://t.co/hqK32qk9b2
@AstroMikeMerri @ejwwest Here's the paper... https://t.co/hqK32qk9b2
MAYBE NOT THAT BAD
@SilverStuff50 @Rosann_1986 @louistalltheway @bekindtomatilda Dr. David Robert Grimes, Oxford. Here's his whole paper if u wanna take a scientific deep dive: https://t.co/CnrE1i9kgM But here's an article with the basic foudings that may be easier to digest/read: https://t.co/QsNQNotN3H
RT @ENirenberg: @thereal_truther A favorite: https://t.co/Rf7ERRJcaL
@CraigMurphy8881 @NateSilver538 https://t.co/x8EYop1qjM
@2030isreal1984 @tommysantos14 @02Rpj23936 @TheoFleury14 https://t.co/x8EYop1qjM
@thereal_truther A favorite: https://t.co/Rf7ERRJcaL
@spencergwatson @Jamie83107302 @Pablosquest @stevethejuice @soundreece @Jeff_mc2 @SkepticJonGuy @Truth_in_Number @SuzieQT11 Yup; cascade logic. https://t.co/0Uri1QBAj5 https://t.co/PakC4YRT4s [with: https://t.co/DwUzPe0a7G] https://t.co/zySSY1hb2d
@ForTrading10 @M25016096 @Ognifedefingo No, io so fare di conto, a differenza tua. https://t.co/7soY1LkMQS
@noafens @bluemortal001 @ChatahMan @ronin19217435 You may want to read this: https://t.co/3Bk1K3ykS6 It is statistically impossible to keep a secret with so many people involved. The fact that it was not revealed yet implies that there is no fact at all. No hidden continents.
RT @jotajotahermes: @astrogrant I love this paper quantifying the likelihood of a leak based on number of conspirators: https://t.co/MdcWiB…
@astrogrant I love this paper quantifying the likelihood of a leak based on number of conspirators: https://t.co/MdcWiBd8yJ
@paulg I'd like to believe that a conspiracy that large would have been prone to unraveling. There's actually a mathematical "survival analysis" model of large conspiracies: https://t.co/K6CrFZ3InG
@lindellch Jag väljer att gå på forskning som påpekar hur svårt det är att medverka i en konspiration som omfattar många människor. Resultaten är naturligtvis en del av konspriationen.
@AyCeeYoo @MMeBlackSheep En 2016, il y avait ce très intéressant article qui s'était penché sur la durée pendant laquelle un complot peut rester secret, en fonction du nombre de personnes qui y participent : https://t.co/ms3fmIoz0N https://t.co/putyRyY5CJ
RT @ecable: @meknowhu A publication analyzing the number of people required to keep a conspiracy theory alive has been published. https://t…
@meknowhu A publication analyzing the number of people required to keep a conspiracy theory alive has been published. https://t.co/Mqr5AXeaZp Needless to say.... 400k is well beyond any limits imaginable.
@einfachich2017 https://t.co/9Imfz0Th6H Mathematisch belegt, dass wenn es tatsächlich eine Verschwörung war, die schon längst aufgedeckt wäre.
@JP071017 @JMiller4491 @vDarknessFalls8 https://t.co/rCao7GI5VU
@MarkFen08382362 @JustUnderReal @WastedAerospace @cl1ntonserver @IrvingForbush2 @randolf828 @TheCookieSavior @BillReagan16 @JUReality @realdfk @AdorablePodcast @liberal_yankee @wisemanryder @BrianNazarenus @MilesMosley666 @TJMair @rosegar17673310 @RealDoctorT @IrisB42744268 @SariellaForever @proundpapaof3 @Macias712 @prehistarchguy @Akinyemi571735 @AdvocatDsuhanda @MurphyYuiko @NuckChorris16 @Godfly__ @Wycked_Yum @DJWCymruExile @Ariel87804127 @kim_because @AndrewRChapman @Covidtalk1 @pray2pesci @Andy_Ross1962 @CACapologetic @tk_the_kitsune @shitfacetrudeau @KerridwinR @Askwhyisit @Frenchg11623069 @DrLazerKitty @mirandaisrisen @Hon3y_Be @themucusonkel @TheGod_Particle @peter_telecom @AyyEmAyye @DavidLim_7 Well, the First question you should be asking is how many people would have been involved. IF it gets past One hand, you're done. There's been studies done from Every angle... https://t
@RealDoctorT @RepublicanRehab @michellmybell1 @texasangler1968 @Caperloo5 @moimasita @ZiggystarZiggy @NewfMom29 @CivilLost @CZonkula57296 @Silver_Strike @UhNachoWho @ZWV134 @rizzoroni @Blowitoutyourd1 @Chuckychuckles1 @Bruh888888888 @lemmabarkaloo @r3d_h3rring @dedazz99090 @Hon3y_Be @learn_thomas @BidenTour @VinceGottalotta @Jennie_SC1 @theProgEqualist @MurphyYuiko @Krispi_Largo @EnrelChi @stelaorwell @JenCages @SierraPoppies @rosegar17673310 @medwoman1 @Synyster63 @odktiger @dogsdontliket @TreatHunterDog @TastyMorsel6 @proundpapaof3 @FrankGeurts3 @realdfk @NotaDorR1 @whodisdontcare @JackWhoElse @nichaeloz @AllyFromCali23 @LordButters22 @ManicPanda2024 Yeah, there's a study on that subject that you need to see... https://t.co/JRMuIMEZcB
@BobStein_FT Paper on the chance that a conspiracy is true (iirc it's a bit simplistic but the type of analysis may be in principle feasible) https://t.co/D1G0ArfKdo
@nognverra @dobssi Nope... just not a crazy conspiracy guy..you seem to like to read papers and think you are smart... this will prop help you understand why 2) is difficult to be true https://t.co/cOiFl6sbtj
@Joshua32862480 @NC_Governor I trust people to do a job this massive and complex job more than I trust a handful of programmers. Mainly because the larger the number of people involved in a conspiracy (if there was one), the shorter the amount of time before somebody slips up. https://t.co/P7wH3hzbxJ
@xRenee0 @gadboit I can show you why that complex conspiracy even at math lvl is bs https://t.co/cOiFl6sbtj
@thinkingmuslima It's a statistical impossiblity for the moon landing to be fake, there were more than 400,00 people and you can't expect me to believe they kept their mouth shut for 49 years. https://t.co/o0PPeFYmu8
@mannyfidel omg there's literally an extremely cool study i'm obsessed with that literally does that https://t.co/LXywmbu8Lz
@AntoninAtger Article de 2016 dans @PLOS "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs" qui estime le temps qu'un complot peut rester secret en fonction du nombre de personnes qui y participent : https://t.co/ms3fmIoz0N https://t.co/MdMj1WEme8
@chilijellybeans You should read this. It calculates, roughly, how quickly a conspiracy will fail depending on time, how many people are involved and the intrinsic probability of failing. https://t.co/t6Ohl448RQ Basically, if 5 people knew about UFOs coming to Earth, we'd know in a week.
@GirlRicho Thanks for the retweet! Here is some reading material which I hope will start you on the road to recovery https://t.co/tcGtkN8PBA
@VigilantFox @RobertKennedyJr A COVID ivermectin conspiracy does not exist. It cannot exist in the scientific community. The actors are independent and uncoordinated. It's literally mathematically impossible for a conspiracy to thrive in the environment. https://t.co/yXpYf8iqtv
RT @joshg99: @EduEngineer @Kevin_McKernan @_DaCon @jjcouey Military secrets can and are kept under wraps for as long as necessary. A paper…
@EduEngineer @Kevin_McKernan @_DaCon @jjcouey Military secrets can and are kept under wraps for as long as necessary. A paper published a few yrs ago showing large scale conspiracies were doomed to failure was an absolute joke written by a paragon of useful idiocy. https://t.co/Ix0WZfoLZ7
@markonhiatus @AJKayWriter (1/2) It seems there is a literature about this already! E.g., @drg1985, On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs (2016) https://t.co/YeHTp9fl5f in which he estimates the probability that a secret conspiracy stays secret, concluding ...
@ProbsNotAliens Was the number you were thinking of for a conspiracy's viability the threshold for the number of conspirators from "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs" by David Robert Grimes? → https://t.co/tITX4tlHpB
#PLOSONE: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/FvZWvpFMNi This is an article that comes up with a formula regarding how many people need to keep a secret to keep a consiparcy alive.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs thanks @frankenvant for this article! https://t.co/bn3kpHrlPY
Il complotto contro i complotti. #PLOSONE: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/BIXSkXGePH
My new article is out: “Do Conspiracies Tend to Fail? Philosophical Reflections on a Poorly Supported Academic Meme” (link below). It critiques the article, “On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs,” by David Grimes. …
When Flaky Finds Footing: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/4aAjhx6syU via @Brewminate
RT @WaltHickey: @itsjoekent this is the subject of one of my fave papers ever, On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/LXy…
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/v5D4L5Gd6b https://t.co/1uHq3ko0eh (Grimes DR (2016) On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0147905. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147905). Miksi psykoottiset salaliittofantasiasi eivät ole totta. #koronafi
Here is Dr Grimes 2016 paper. On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/JdZ2mxHze9
An interesting read on why so many are persuaded by conspiracies: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs, by @drg1985 https://t.co/SANhFk030e
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/8gt8wRu6Am
https://t.co/LoSLwMzSin
@itsjoekent this is the subject of one of my fave papers ever, On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/LXywmbcxmZ https://t.co/Xj8LBNqP49
7 این نمونهها و البته معادلهی گریمز مؤید این واقعیت است که هرچند توطئهها و پنهانکاریهای وسیعی در جهان اتفاق میافتد، اما هیچکدام از آنها نمیتوانند زمان زیادی دوام بیاورند. منبع :
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/QXVfl925OV
The grim reality is that there appears to be a cohort so ideologically invested in a belief that for whom no reasoning will shift, their convictions impervious to the intrusions of reality.* * Grimes DR (2016) On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs.
@Afelia Es gibt dazu eine wissenschaftliche Ausarbeitung: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs David Robert Grimes, 2016 https://t.co/15Ol0lClcn "the results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable and prone to failure"
@alexhareland @RyanWalraven There's a cool research paper, "On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs," that looks at the math of how long a real conspiracy could last based on how many people would have to be in on it. e.g. if the moon landing was a hoax, it would have come out in just 3yr8mo.
Per si algú li fa gràcia llegir-se l'article sencer aquí teniu la referència: Grimes, D. R. (2016). On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs. PLoS One, 11(1), e0147905.
El 2016 el físic d'Oxford David Robert Grimes va publicar un article titulat "On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs" on discutia utilitzant models matemàtics de persona llesta quant temps podia mantenir-se secreta una conspiració.
@decipheringfire Also, here’s some science on the viability of conspiratorial beliefs
Love this! "In this work, we establish a simple mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy." https://t.co/x12IlbNVy2
@Q__Evolution @KarluskaP Not so fast! The study, published in PLOS ONE (“On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs”), concludes that it’s quite difficult for a conspiracy to remain under wraps for long. Did you run the model first?
@whereisdaz On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs: https://t.co/iFS03x5rOt This answered a lot for me.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/KeRxt8qwYZ To be remembered forever.
@drg1985 I have a few questions on your paper On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs and I’d love to ask you a few questions about it
@_onurcanyilmaz @SinanAlper_ Fizikçi D. R. Grimes "bir komplo olsaydı hangi şartların sağlanması gerekirdi" sorusuna cevaben matematiksel bir model sunuyor: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/MXVJDfRSoB Grimes'ın modeliyle ilgili daha kolay anlaşılır bir yazı: https://t.co/b32tOe9qAX
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs by David Robert Grimes https://t.co/3l6E7TQ4h6
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/wtXn0GPrIh
New post: "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs" https://t.co/Nu7NKVuNNq
According to Frank ‘The Irishman’ Sheeran “Three people can keep a secret only if two of them are dead”. Looks like Scorsese has read “On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs” by David Grimes https://t.co/zVWvjeA6jy
Reading research: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs by @drg1985 https://t.co/zxKu9X0ZWx
#casoalcàsser #versiónoficial 1/3 ¿Cuánto puede durar una versión oficial (VO) engañosa? David Robert Grimes, un físico investigador de Oxford desarrolló un modelo preguntándose algo parecido (On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs) Lo tenéis en https://t.co/2DviGY7nv9
@JHowardBrainMD Grimes paper ‘On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs’ shows results of his model. Large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable, prone to failure. Explains why NASA, big pharma, etc., conspiracy theories are mathematically impossible. https://t.co/CoPthq2RnI
The method and conclusions of the PLOS paper `On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs` Are completely misguided. Proof: https://t.co/cEvb1nas8w
@Patriot1Warrior @StechDoes Why, here’s one now On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs https://t.co/tclcbfEmZG
RT @MettaBhavana1: @beneltham No doubt you will be hit by "Yes, but," conspiratorial ideationists. Here's a good science study On the Viabi…
@beneltham No doubt you will be hit by "Yes, but," conspiratorial ideationists. Here's a good science study On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs. https://t.co/LsdXkVEIwv
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs David Robert Grimes ...there are a disconcerting number of conspiracy theories which enjoy popular support and yet are demonstrably nonsensical. This is particularly... https://t.co/1ifLP8SBvi
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs: A study that demonstrates, mathematically, that common large conspiracy theories are unsustainable https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs: A study that demonstrates, mathematically, that common large conspiracy theories are unsustainable https://t.co/3gjXHIG0Ch
A simple mathematical model for conspiracies; large ones (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable & prone to failure http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905