3 ms·

governments can't keep secrets fallacy. they can. Manhattan. these days, you can just take people's phones.

by dosy 7y ago

jbob2000 7y ago
The internet and prolific camera ownership wasn’t a thing back then.
- dosy 7y ago
  Your points are good, but I think there's another possibility, besides "too big to hide" and "too easy not to invent". What if there is a very big SSP, but secrecy is extremely important (natsec, earth security, competitive advantage, greed, power), and all kinds of measures at every stage were taken to preserve it? National security oaths, unacknowledged compartmentalized programs, with black budget funding, research done in underground facilities, memory erasure, permanent off-planet postings? To me that is conceivable. You would have two systems, a public system of earth government, and a parallel system devoted to preserving the SSP and off world colonies. I think it could be done. Couple that with a strong PR / propoganda / psyop / disinformation game to discredit leakers, mimic real disclosures in pop culture media, and spread fake narratives, and I think it's like "magic" as in the "art of deception". I think mass psychology could be effectively used to "plug any holes" that the system might have, and over time, with secrecy as an "equal first" priority, I believe they could succeed. Is that not concievable to you in some way, where do you get stuck? So that's "big and hidden", but not too big to hide. Secondly, I propose, "inventable but not publishable", as in, what if it's somewhat easy to invent the basic technologies (electrogravitics, zero point energy), but owing to secrecy and economic concerns, these tech have a high "activation energy hump" to get over to actually proliferate in the world? Combine patent suppression, raids on technology to seize and destroy it, intimidation and ensnarement of inventors, and I think you'd be able to keep a lid on it for probably about 100 years, which is what we've seen. Another way to think about the second point is this, clandestine nuclear devices (dirty bombs or actual fusion/fission) should be possible to deploy for non-state actors, but it's never happened. Surely there's coordinated effort to suppress this tech and prevent it's creation. Now what if SSP tech was an even higher priority, and "approximately equally as difficult to invent / create", if world governments and corporations could prevent a nuclear terrorist, could they not prevent rogue proliferation of zero gravity or free energy tech, especially if they consider that more important? Again, which part of these arguments is sticking for you? I'm fine if you don't want to engage, I know that even in 2019, there's still a lot of shame and fear attached to these topics, but I see that changing, a lot of whistleblowers, a lot of intelligent, well-researched youtubers (edge of wonder, secureteam10, bright insight), and officially sanctioned evidence (uss nimitz tictac video). I mean, maybe the whole narrative is just a massive psyop or mass delusion, but there's likely something here that's plausible to you.
0xffff2 7y ago
Every space launch and every large object in orbit are trivially observable. Even when the NRO launches top secret spy satellites that they barely acknowledge the existence of, we know exactly when the launch is. Thanks to the cold-war risk of nuclear ICBMs, every launch is publicly announced to reduce the risk of false positives in an early warning system. In light of this, your proposition is impossible without also supposing the organization backing this hypothetical operation also has the ability to perfectly suppress all information related to the project. Literal back yard astronomers would notice every single launch, and every single "spy satellite" that disappeared off into space if the launches were announced but the payload kept secret. You're basically speculating that there exists an organization capable of perfectly controlling all information worldwide. If that were true, there's hardly any point in worrying about it. In such a situation, we could be living in the Matrix for all we know and there really wouldn't be anything we could do about it.
- dosy 7y ago
  unnecessary. visual cloaking. are you watching objects in 5th gen FLIR? zero radar cross section. even USAF has acknowledged craft you can't trivially observe. your point is rubbish.
  - simias 7y ago
    This way of talking (using very short nominal sentences, citing many more or less related next to one another) seems very common among conspiracy theorists. I genuinely wonder where that comes from and if it's a conscious choice or some memetic imitation.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dosy 7y ago
      associating me with conspiracy theorist by my way of talking. points for a very well formed insult. I'm impressed by how much you got in a small amount of space: criticize my way of talkin, associate me with conspiracy theorist, suggest that I'm behaving unconsciously or mimetically imitating others in a robotic fashion. and all without making it look like an overt insult, giving you pre-emptive cover in case someone accuses you of insulting them. really quite brilliant. now what could have justified this expenditure of effort on your part towards me? and what sort of experiences in your life would have driven you to develop the skills to become an expert at crafting these sort of subtle insults towards others? those to me the really interesting things to think about. are you following me better now? my phrasing is now more in sync with your brain? on the face of it, if you have a problem with my way of talking, that's your problem not mine. but please I don't think you're being very genuine, I think the real reason for your comment is yet to be discovered. let me think some more about it. okay I think you were just having a bad day and were really angry and wanted someone to project onto and take it out on. sorry I don't accept your offer. you keep your fury it's yours. okay the next interesting point is conspiracy theory. I mean are you scared of that term? do you think it's a term of abuse? see because we're making theories about conspiracies. what's wrong with that? I guess you're just deluded by the social programming into thinking that term conspiracy theory is a shaming word. well that's just blinkers for your mind to stop you thinking dangerous thoughts. maybe you need that kind of thing. but me I'm okay with my mind. it's not my problem if you're not okay with yours and you need someone else to decide what you're allowed to think. who's mimetically imitating now, robot? hope your today is better than the day you commented.

governments can't keep secrets fallacy. they can. Manhattan. these days, you can just take people's phones.

by dosy 7y ago

governments can't keep secrets fallacy. they can. Manhattan. these days, you can just take people's phones.

jbob2000 7y ago

The internet and prolific camera ownership wasn’t a thing back then.

dosy 7y ago
Your points are good, but I think there's another possibility, besides "too big to hide" and "too easy not to invent". What if there is a very big SSP, but secrecy is extremely important (natsec, earth security, competitive advantage, greed, power), and all kinds of measures at every stage were taken to preserve it? National security oaths, unacknowledged compartmentalized programs, with black budget funding, research done in underground facilities, memory erasure, permanent off-planet postings? To me that is conceivable. You would have two systems, a public system of earth government, and a parallel system devoted to preserving the SSP and off world colonies. I think it could be done. Couple that with a strong PR / propoganda / psyop / disinformation game to discredit leakers, mimic real disclosures in pop culture media, and spread fake narratives, and I think it's like "magic" as in the "art of deception". I think mass psychology could be effectively used to "plug any holes" that the system might have, and over time, with secrecy as an "equal first" priority, I believe they could succeed. Is that not concievable to you in some way, where do you get stuck? So that's "big and hidden", but not too big to hide. Secondly, I propose, "inventable but not publishable", as in, what if it's somewhat easy to invent the basic technologies (electrogravitics, zero point energy), but owing to secrecy and economic concerns, these tech have a high "activation energy hump" to get over to actually proliferate in the world? Combine patent suppression, raids on technology to seize and destroy it, intimidation and ensnarement of inventors, and I think you'd be able to keep a lid on it for probably about 100 years, which is what we've seen. Another way to think about the second point is this, clandestine nuclear devices (dirty bombs or actual fusion/fission) should be possible to deploy for non-state actors, but it's never happened. Surely there's coordinated effort to suppress this tech and prevent it's creation. Now what if SSP tech was an even higher priority, and "approximately equally as difficult to invent / create", if world governments and corporations could prevent a nuclear terrorist, could they not prevent rogue proliferation of zero gravity or free energy tech, especially if they consider that more important? Again, which part of these arguments is sticking for you? I'm fine if you don't want to engage, I know that even in 2019, there's still a lot of shame and fear attached to these topics, but I see that changing, a lot of whistleblowers, a lot of intelligent, well-researched youtubers (edge of wonder, secureteam10, bright insight), and officially sanctioned evidence (uss nimitz tictac video). I mean, maybe the whole narrative is just a massive psyop or mass delusion, but there's likely something here that's plausible to you.

0xffff2 7y ago

Every space launch and every large object in orbit are trivially observable. Even when the NRO launches top secret spy satellites that they barely acknowledge the existence of, we know exactly when the launch is. Thanks to the cold-war risk of nuclear ICBMs, every launch is publicly announced to reduce the risk of false positives in an early warning system. In light of this, your proposition is impossible without also supposing the organization backing this hypothetical operation also has the ability to perfectly suppress all information related to the project. Literal back yard astronomers would notice every single launch, and every single "spy satellite" that disappeared off into space if the launches were announced but the payload kept secret. You're basically speculating that there exists an organization capable of perfectly controlling all information worldwide. If that were true, there's hardly any point in worrying about it. In such a situation, we could be living in the Matrix for all we know and there really wouldn't be anything we could do about it.

dosy 7y ago
unnecessary. visual cloaking. are you watching objects in 5th gen FLIR? zero radar cross section. even USAF has acknowledged craft you can't trivially observe. your point is rubbish.
- simias 7y ago
  This way of talking (using very short nominal sentences, citing many more or less related next to one another) seems very common among conspiracy theorists. I genuinely wonder where that comes from and if it's a conscious choice or some memetic imitation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dosy 7y ago
    associating me with conspiracy theorist by my way of talking. points for a very well formed insult. I'm impressed by how much you got in a small amount of space: criticize my way of talkin, associate me with conspiracy theorist, suggest that I'm behaving unconsciously or mimetically imitating others in a robotic fashion. and all without making it look like an overt insult, giving you pre-emptive cover in case someone accuses you of insulting them. really quite brilliant. now what could have justified this expenditure of effort on your part towards me? and what sort of experiences in your life would have driven you to develop the skills to become an expert at crafting these sort of subtle insults towards others? those to me the really interesting things to think about. are you following me better now? my phrasing is now more in sync with your brain? on the face of it, if you have a problem with my way of talking, that's your problem not mine. but please I don't think you're being very genuine, I think the real reason for your comment is yet to be discovered. let me think some more about it. okay I think you were just having a bad day and were really angry and wanted someone to project onto and take it out on. sorry I don't accept your offer. you keep your fury it's yours. okay the next interesting point is conspiracy theory. I mean are you scared of that term? do you think it's a term of abuse? see because we're making theories about conspiracies. what's wrong with that? I guess you're just deluded by the social programming into thinking that term conspiracy theory is a shaming word. well that's just blinkers for your mind to stop you thinking dangerous thoughts. maybe you need that kind of thing. but me I'm okay with my mind. it's not my problem if you're not okay with yours and you need someone else to decide what you're allowed to think. who's mimetically imitating now, robot? hope your today is better than the day you commented.