Skip to main content

MKUltra: The Science They Don't Want You to Know


Hello internet, and welcome to The Science They Don't Want You to Know.  As I have mentioned in the first post of this series, I am doing research regarding the statistical viability of currently unconfirmed conspiracies (no leaked documents) by way of currently known conspiracies (documents have been leaked).  The primary purpose of this initial research is to gather particular information, specifically how many people were involved in the actual conspiracies and the length of time which these conspiracies took place.  If you have not read the first post, you should read it here

In today's world of the internet -- and with the modern obsession with distrust of the government -- there are  few who don't know at least of the existence of the CIA project called MK-Ultra.  For those of you who don't know, it was a project in the 50's and 60's where they attempted to develop direct mind control similar to what happened to Geordi la Forge in the Star Trek TNG season 4 episode "The Mind's Eye".  These attempts of mind control are different than the method of brainwashing (though there is an exposed conspiracy of governmental control of media for brainwashing; when the blog on that is posted, I will link to it).  There were attempts to destroy all documents relating to MK Ultra in 1973, but there were a few sheets which escaped destruction because they were initially misfiled and placed in files unrelated to the MK Ultra Project.  This is a testament to the necessity for properly filing documents immediately, especially if there is the possibility of "destroying all relevant evidence", but that's a topic for another day.


To be fair, nobody gets filing right.

In the late 1940's, the CIA began testing the tests of certain behavioral modifying drugs (such as LSD) in response to reports that the Soviet Union was doing the same.  This was shortly after the Soviet Union produced their first nuclear chain reaction in a lab, but before they tested their first nuclear bomb.  Since it was after the first successful Soviet controlled chain reaction but before their first nuke test -- and since there is a lack of specificity to when in that time period the CIA started this program -- 1949 will be considered the first year of the conspiracy to maximize the likelihood of the conspiracy being real for the unknowns I calculate in the future.

The project obtained it's legal start in 1953 with approval from the senate subcommittee overseeing the CIA.  The fact that the CIA went behind the back of congress (in general) is not what makes MK Ultra unconscionable; it's what they were doing in the program.  The program was designed to slip unsuspecting people LCD and other "mind-altering/controlling drugs" and see if they were able to convince them of lies and prod their psyches to perform actions they would not normally perform.  These tests were longer and more in depth than I am letting on, but to go into detail would require a lengthy book on the subject -- decidedly longer than a blog post can contain.


Just, the largest.

In 1955, there was a letter sent from the CIA to Congress which expressed the need for the secrecy of this project.  Makes sense, seeing as how enemies getting their hands on this material would be a bad idea for national security.  The letter, though, mentioned that the public cannot be made aware of these activities because of the immoral nature of the project.  This tells us that they knew that what they were doing was immoral.

Shortly thereafter, those working on the project realized that they were going nowhere with the research, so they throttled back the work force for the project.  It was eventually disbanded and they had all of the documents destroyed.

Or so they thought.

The program was made public in 1975, when requests for a particular set of documents had files in it from the MK Ultra project, like the world's darkest Easter egg.  Shortly thereafter, a former agent for the CIA came public saying that yes, the CIA performed these amoral actions.  Then a Freedom of Information Act request revealed a large amount of documents on the matter, and a sizable amount of the programs actions and intents were exposed to the public, even as we have to handle the fact that we won't know the entire story.

Since the mathematics depends on the end point being the point of exposure, and not the point of ending the conspiracy, we now can calculate the time frame.  This is from 1948 to 1975, or 27 years.  Also, based on the released reports, there were about 20,000 people involved in MK Ultra.

The per person probability can be calculated by 1-((1-(ln2/t)^(1/N)).  Plugging in t=27 and N=20000, we get an intrinsic probability of p=1.3003E-6 (0.0000013003).  This p value (not to be confused with the statistical P-value for the P-test) will be used to obtain the average probability of leak per person per year for the unknown case.  Since this is the first value for annual per conspirator probability of exposure, 0.0000013003 is the current average value.

Relevant Entries:
Start Here

Until next time, take that as you will.
K. "Alan" Eister Î”αβ

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Basic Statistics Lecture #3: Normal, Binomial, and Poisson Distributions

As I have mentioned last time , the uniform continuous distribution is not the only form of continuous distribution in statistics.  As promised, here are the three most common continuous distribution types.  As a side note, all sampling distributions are relative to the algebraic mean. Normal Distribution: I think most people are familiar with the concept of a normal distribution.  If you've ever seen a bell curve, you've seen the normal distribution.  If you've begun from the first lecture of this lecture series, you've also seen the normal distribution. This type of distribution is where the data points follow a continuous curve, is non-uniform, has a mean (algebraic average) equal to the median (the exact middle value), falls from highest probability at the mean to (for all practical purposes) zero as the x-values approach $\pm \infty$, and therefor has equal number of data points to the left and to the right of the mean, and has the domain of $(\pm \i

Confidence Interval: Basic Statistics Lecture Series Lecture #11

You'll remember last time , I covered hypothesis testing of proportions and the time before that , hypothesis testing of a sample with a mean and standard deviation.  This time, I'll cover the concept of confidence intervals. Confidence intervals are of the form μ 1-α ∈ (a, b) 1-α , where a and b are two numbers such that a<b, α is the significance level as covered in hypothesis testing, and μ is the actual population mean (not the sample mean). This is a the statement of there being a [(1-α)*100]% probability that the true population mean will be somewhere between a and b.  The obvious question is "How do we find a and b?".  Here, I will describe the process. Step 1. Find the Fundamental Statistics The first thing we need to find the fundamental statistics , the mean, standard deviation, and the sample size.  The sample mean is typically referred to as the point estimate by most statistics text books.  This is because the point estimate of the populati

Basic Statistics Lecture #5: Baye's Theorem

As promised last time , I am going to cover Baye's Theorem. If Tree diagram is the common name for Bayes Theorem.  Recall that conditional probability is given by $P(A \mid B) = \frac{P(A \wedge B)}{P(B)}$.   For tree diagrams, let's say that we have events A, B 1 , B 2 , B 3 , … (the reason we have multiple B's is because they all are within the same family of events) such that the events in the family of B are mutually exclusive and the sum of the probabilities of the events in the family of B are equal to 1. Then we have $$P(B_i \mid A)= \frac{P(B_i)*P(A \mid B_i)}{\sum_{m=1}^{n}[P(B_m)*P(A \mid B_m)]}$$  What this means is reliant on the tree diagram. If we are only looking at the sub-items of A, this is what the tree diagram would look like. If J has a probability of 100%, and P(C) and P(D) are not 0, then when we are trying to find the probability of any of the B's being true given that A is true, we have to set the probability of A to be the entir