# Secretive Behavior and Conspiracy Theories



## Janx (Sep 15, 2012)

I just watched the Discovery Channel's Mermaid docuspiracy.  So this is another TV/Real world discussion.  Hopefully it'll be fun and I'll learn something.

The premise is that these NOAA scientists get called to work on a mass whale beaching in Washington state.  These are the same scientists who caught the Navy doing dangerous Sonic Weapon tests, proved it, published it, and made them stop.

While on the scene, they find the Navy is already there, has one of the many bodies cordoned off while they do mysterious fiddling around.  After the Navy leaves, the scientists go over and look, but don't find anything.

There's another mass beaching in South Africa, and the same scientists go there, and through some odd luck, get pointed to a dead great white shark that they open up and find parts of a mysterious critter that they later deduce is a Mermaid.

Note, the scientists don't realize it's humanoid until later stages of their research.  They think they've got a new marine mammal like a whale or dolphin on their hands.  it happens.

Later, the South Africa seizes the research, destroys it, and all that's left is the scientists and what's in their head.  It also turns out that the 2 boys who found the first beaching had a camphone recording (which in those days was rare and less probable for the Navy to think to confiscate when they talked to the family).  The video shows a Merfolk survivor reacting to the kid's prodding.

It's an interesting story.  But is there a more practical way to tell if its real?

Is there a way to investigate odd happenings that secure the evidence and prevent cover-ups, etc from happening?

Is there a way for governments to act that don't make things look suspicious.

Let's say there really was NOT an mermaid on the beach that day.  There's really no kind of business for the Navy to be on the beach that day, let alone to be secretive about in front of NOAA investigators who also have authority to be on the scene.

It's the same problem as when your kid refuses to tell you where he's been all day.  Acting secretively induces distrust and suspicion, which causes the questioner to increase their scrutiny.  Kids complain all the time about their parents invading their privacy and not trusting them, but in most cases, it's because kids are stupid and give evasive responses, rather than a simple, if fabricated outline of their day's activity that will satisfy the querant, without rousing further investigation.

Now I'm dubious of most conspiracies.  I think humans are relatively lousy at keeping secrets, especially low paid ones like the kind that make up government agencies.

But I also find that humans hide stupid things, probably more out of  contrariness or getting caught for embezzlement, than any great concerted effort to hide aliens, etc.

Are there any conspiracy theories that actually might have some weight, beyond just the kook factor?

For instance, my conspiracy theory friend says:
various US departments posted an ad on their sites (homeland security, social security, some others) for 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition for some specific calibres of guns.  That's enough bullets to double-tap every citizen of the United States.  Also, apparently Hollow points are against Geneva Conventions, so the military can't use them.  They've since blacked out the amounts, but not the ad on the website.

Chemtrails, he says, are just silver oxide, which attracts water.  basically rain seeding and mostly harmless (except for what other side effects silver oxide might do).  So apparently he's not a chemtrail-nut.

The Federal Reserve, I'm told from multiple sources is evil/corrupt.  I was never quite clear on the details.

In Minnesota, the DNR publishes what it pays out to a shell company for some "mystery' service.  In past years, it was some reasonable amount (sub-million dollars).  Since a new sales tax that feeds to the DNR passed, that number has jumped up considerably higher in the millions).  Obviously, increased funds should result in increased spending.  But this "looks" like somebody's getting a big pay increase for potentially the same service.

Anything else I should know about the conspiracies of the world?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> Is there a way for governments to act that don't make things look suspicious.




This falls under, "you see what you look for".


----------



## Janx (Sep 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> This falls under, "you see what you look for".




there's probably no appeasing really paranoid or suspicious people.  

But let's say, for "normal" people, there's a way to show up on the scene that doesn't make people think you're hiding something or intimidating people into silence.

I think there's a non-zero group of normal people who experience this behavior, which then in turn makes them curious and investigage further, and become more convinced there's something insidious going on.  When in fact, it's just people communicating poorly.  It creates conspiracy theory behavior, basically.


I think it's a collision of "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be averse to being examined" with "nobody needs to know my business"

i think as humans, we do a piss poor job of prioritizing that access to my credit card information should be on a need to know basis, versus sharing a basic explanation of why I'm at a location with any other individual who asks me at that location.  People in general don't need to know my comings and goings (ala Facebook), but being overly protective of that information invites miscommunication and distrust.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> I think it's a collision of "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be averse to being examined" with "nobody needs to know my business"




Well, stack on top of this that the people whose business you don't need to know are not just normal citizens, but are acting in an official capacity.  In many instances, they are not allowed to discuss open investigations or activities, and do have a need to keep civilians out of the way.  

They have to keep their authority, have to avoid causing alarm, but cannot give out definitive information - that's basically tying their hands as to what they can or cannot say.


----------



## ggroy (Sep 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, stack on top of this that the people whose business you don't need to know are not just normal citizens, but are acting in an official capacity.  In many instances, they are not allowed to discuss open investigations or activities, and do have a need to keep civilians out of the way.
> 
> They have to keep their authority, have to avoid causing alarm, but cannot give out definitive information - that's basically tying their hands as to what they can or cannot say.




If something is high level enough (ie. federal) and is documented with a paper trail, eventually such information may end up being declassified and/or revealed many years (or decades) later through "freedom of information" requests .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2012)

This may get me "expunged" by the MiBs, but I work for the agency that creates "documents" for various agencies to fulfill Freedom of Information Act requests.  That's right, they're all at least partially falsified...even the redacted portions.

BRB- someone is knocking at my door...


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 15, 2012)

Huh...

Wonder why the other thread was locked... Very curious...


----------



## ggroy (Sep 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> BRB- someone is knocking at my door...




Is that Agent Will Smith?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2012)

I have absolutely no recollection of posting in this thread...my account must have been hacked!


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have absolutely no recollection of posting in this thread...my account must have been hacked!




To be fair, aren't you the guy who posts to ENWorld while intoxicated?

You know, if you're blacking out while doing that, you might have a problem...


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Sep 16, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> Huh...
> 
> Wonder why the other thread was locked... Very curious...



I have it on good authority-- a certain _Dr. Ann O. Nymoussource*_-- that it was a poor attempt to cover up a cloning experiment gone awry.  I can't say too much, but it involves the Piltdown Man and a well-known the tinfoil commodity trader.

Trust no one.

Especially not ENWorld mods.


[END OF TRANSMISSION]
.

* I believe she's Greek.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2012)

ENWorld Mods?

An anagram for what you REALLY mean..."Moles drown'd!!!"*





* referring, of course, to how the Illuminerdy who rule the world handle snitches.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> Huh...
> 
> Wonder why the other thread was locked... Very curious...




That?  That was simple misdirection, to make you *think* there was something going on there.  Kind of like Area 51.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Sep 16, 2012)

Is it _just_ a concidence that "Umbran" is an anagram of "Barnum"??

Who is suckering whom here???

Trust  no one!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 16, 2012)

You find conspiracy when you start looking for them.  Don't get me wrong, they are out there but if you are looking for them, you will find them and they have a way of growing the longer you look at them.  They are like six degrees to Kevin Bacon, dots get connected.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2012)

Says "Hand of Evil"...

Or should I say..."Find a hovel?!?!"


----------



## Janx (Sep 16, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> Huh...
> 
> Wonder why the other thread was locked... Very curious...




That was because I requested it.  When I posted this thread, it added 2 entries instead of one thread.  So I reported it and asked for it to be deleted.  But it was locked instead.  Possibly because the moderator didn't have delete permission.

No conspiracy.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> That was because I requested it.  When I posted this thread, it added 2 entries instead of one thread.  So I reported it and asked for it to be deleted.  But it was locked instead.  Possibly because the moderator didn't have delete permission.
> 
> No conspiracy.




I was the one that locked it.  I most certainly do have delete permission.  I just don't generally delete things if I don't *have* to.

Or, at least, that's what I want you all to think


----------



## Janx (Sep 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I was the one that locked it.  I most certainly do have delete permission.  I just don't generally delete things if I don't *have* to.
> 
> Or, at least, that's what I want you all to think




and see how clear and easy it was for both of us to disclose what was going on both sides of the curtain?

I know Umbran raised a valid point earlier that some people's jobs don't permit them to comment or disclose information.  Sometimes I think that goes too far, or is handled too strongly, which leads to distrust, rather than simply securing sensitive information.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> No conspiracy.




You're just saying that to throw us off the scent.  Clearly, you've been absorbed into the collective.

I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.


----------



## Shadeydm (Sep 16, 2012)

You just better hope if they come and get you they don't bring you to a FEMA death camp


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Sep 17, 2012)

Janx said:


> Sometimes I think that goes too far, or is handled too strongly, which leads to distrust, rather than simply securing sensitive information.



"Simply securing sensitive information" can be a bear of a problem.  At least in my experience, maintaining sensitive material is prone to "mission creep".  As an organization or project ages, it produces more and more secret material, of course.  Moreover, there also tends to be a lot of associated stuff that also gets sucked into the classification scheme for various reasons, not least of which is simple laziness: it can take a LOT of effort to inspect and scrub information for release.

So rather than try to keep the line between 'secret' and 'not secret' nice and clear and realistic, an organization will generally tend to act very conservatively toward information release, preferring to hide _everything_, so as not to accidentally divulge something truly 'secret'.

End result is that such an organization always seems to act or speak suspiciously from the perspective of outsiders-- even when whatever it's hiding isn't actually worth hiding.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Sep 22, 2012)

Umbran was NOT trying to hide any thing or send a red herring when locked the other thread.

Now just follow the pen and forget the word conspiracy.

*dons sunglasses*

*FLASH!*​


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2012)

Scott DeWar said:


> *FLASH!*​





AHah!  Defender of the Universe!


----------



## Scott DeWar (Sep 23, 2012)

Umbran said:


> AHah!  Defender of the Universe!



 Uh, no. That would be  . . . . . . . . . . .



Scott DeWar said:


> *FLASH! GORDON!!!*​


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2012)

Which is better than

*GORDON FLASHED!*​


(Ah-aaaaahhh!  He'll show everything to us!)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2012)

Scott DeWar said:


> Uh, no. That would be  . . . . . . . . . . .




Only if you care about actually getting the lyrics correct.


----------



## Janx (Sep 25, 2012)

In a more serious return to the topic, my conspiracy theory friend has delivered the link to the government site where they are looking to buy .223 ammo in large quantities.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c432be5826bf182b180ab4c2392aa978&tab=core&tabmode=list&=

The Statement of Work (SOW) indicates 40 million this year, and 40 million per subsequent option year for 4 years.

The requesting department is Homeland Security.

My friend sees some dark purpose to such an order.

I deduce that the .223 probably fits M16 style weapons.  And that this ammo may likely be deployed to border patrol, CIA, FBI for actual gunfights and for target practice.  The latter likely being a heavier consumer of ammo.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 5, 2012)

in a less serious note, i once started  this thread  because there was a conspiracy of the mods of some sort.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 5, 2012)

A conspiracy of mods?

So you're saying the mods are ravens?

Dark wings, dark words...


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 5, 2012)

Are you thinking of a *murder* of crows?


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 6, 2012)

Scott DeWar said:


> Are you thinking of a *murder* of crows?




It's a murder of crows, but the (apparently obsolete according to Wikipedia) collective nouns for ravens are "conspiracy" and (my new favorite) "unkindness".


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 6, 2012)

so if they have crows and ravens, then its a conspiracy of murder?


----------



## Lwaxy (Oct 6, 2012)

How unkind 

English language and their silly collective nouns.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

Scott DeWar said:


> so if they have crows and ravens, then its a conspiracy of murder?




The other way 'round.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 6, 2012)

Scott DeWar said:


> so if they have ravens and crows, then its a murderous conspiracy?




Danny, like this?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

Yeah, baby!


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 7, 2012)

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] 
I bet your friends read th is article or one similar to it: Prison Planet.com  Federal Law Enforcement Stockpiling Arms (10,000/ICE Employee). And for reference here is the separate request from DHS for .357 SIG hollow point round (it seems the quantity of rounds sought has been redacted): https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...&id=183c013a31357f03e8ab64d29bf86b2f&_cview=0.

The volume of .223 SD rounds is massive!! It is like "urban meltdown" levels, which I believe is what conspiracy theorists would see in this, a stockpiling to put down urban insurrection.

Personally, this September/October I was watching news more than normal, because Tom Brown of the Tracker School had sent out an un characteristic warning to students about the potential fallout of a solar flare disabling most mechanical devices. I know it sounds absurd, the stuff out of sci-fi. I read about solar flares but didn't reach the same conclusion that Tom did, but I still respect the man immensely - he is attempting to find patterns in extraordinary amounts of modern information and match those up to indigenous prophecies. That's mind-rending work, any way you slice it, and you've got to be a little crazy to go there.

Then again a little crazy can save your life sometimes.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 7, 2012)

Janx said:


> In a more serious return to the topic, my conspiracy theory friend has delivered the link to the government site where they are looking to buy .223 ammo in large quantities.
> 
> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c432be5826bf182b180ab4c2392aa978&tab=core&tabmode=list&=
> 
> ...




His assessment of scale is way off.

Yes, .223 (5.56mm) fits M16 & M4-type weapons, and yes, most of it will be used in training (CIA isn't part of DHS, by the way, but the Coast Guard is, and they shoot a metric buttload of ammo for what is primarily a law enforcement agency).

40 million rounds per year is peanuts.  Try this on for order of magnitude: the Army is currently buying -- and consuming -- on the order of 400-500 million rounds of 5.56mm per year, most of it in training, and those numbers are significantly down from a couple of years ago (at the peak of operations in Iraq in 2007 we were buying and consuming on the order of 1.2 billion rounds of small arms ammo a year).  In another fact that will blow your mind: virtually all of the Army's current 5.56mm production comes from a single location, the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri.


----------



## Janx (Oct 7, 2012)

Quickleaf's article and summation sounds like my friend's thinking, so I suspect that's his initiating source (as in read article, then found the .gov site as proof).

I would suspect that if I found a .gov site and had a crazy theory and posted an blog entry about it, and you read my blog entry FIRST, then checked the .gov site to verify my "proof", that you'd be more inclined to agree with my position, than if you found the .gov site and were left to think of the reason on your own.

Basically, when you're given an explanation backed with facts, you're more likely to acccept the explanation.  After all, it has facts, that you can check.

 [MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION]'s explanation of actualy military consumption of ammo matches by guess of what it could mean.  Basically, training.  You'll probably use more ammo on the shooting range, than on the field, at least for folks NOT in an active combat situation.

Assuming Olgar's "facts" on typical consumption rates are correct enough (they sound plausible, based on my understanding of shooting lots of ammo on the range, and 1 round on an animal), then this is all in line with that.

In general, I'm skeptical of large organizations being able to pull of large screw jobs of society like a coup.  I suppose it's possible, lots of people helped Hitler, the Manhattan project was apparently pretty well kept, and Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their new iPhone's secret.  But then, there's also leaks.  We did KNOW what Hitler was doing.  At least 2 of the Apple rumors were correct.

Additionally, when it comes to the big evil take-over concerns, we do have our second ammendment rights.  Which are really the right to vote Hitler out of office.  While there are crazy and wrong people who've previously executed on that right, it is always an option in America when General McEvil stages a coup and takes over the goverrnment.

I also believe that even if the majority of General McEvil's command buy's into his BS about America needing him to take over, at least SOME of his men (who are all also Americans) will realize what he's doing is wrong, and do something about it.  I believe that at least one Nazi said "this is wrong" and got shot, and another Nazi kept his mouth shut and then worked behind the scenes to resist.  Just like some white folk in the south helped black folk escape on the underground railroad.  Not everybody drinks the local koolaid.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 7, 2012)

Having a military background, and having (as a civilian) shot different types of ammo even from the same gun, I can tell you that there are different reactions to trajectory of a bullet as per the type that it is. A copper clad bullet will travel further then a semi-wadcutter hollow point. Train on the bullet type you want to use in your line of work, be it guard for a bank or guard in the military.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 7, 2012)

Janx said:


> In general, I'm skeptical of large organizations being able to pull of large screw jobs of society like a coup.  I suppose it's possible, lots of people helped Hitler, the Manhattan project was apparently pretty well kept, and Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their new iPhone's secret.  But then, there's also leaks.  We did KNOW what Hitler was doing.  At least 2 of the Apple rumors were correct.




I work for the government.  If there's anyone capable of pulling off a vast government conspiracy, well, it's not us.

_Of course, that's what you'd expect us to say._


----------



## Lwaxy (Oct 8, 2012)

Janx said:


> Basically, when you're given an explanation backed with facts, you're more likely to acccept the explanation.  After all, it has facts, that you can check.




Having followed a forum full of conspiracy theorists just for the fun of it for over a year, I believe with most of those people no amount of facts can make them get a better perspective on matters. It's like they want their theories to be true. 

 <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> 







> and Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their new iPhone's secret




Didn't they lose their latest models in public places at least twice?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 8, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Having followed a forum full of conspiracy theorists just for the fun of it for over a year, I believe with most of those people no amount of facts can make them get a better perspective on matters. It's like they want their theories to be true.




As someone smarter than me once said: "People won't be convinced by logic to change a position they didn't use logic to arrive at in the first place."


----------



## ggroy (Oct 8, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> As someone smarter than me once said: "People won't be convinced by logic to change a position they didn't use logic to arrive at in the first place."




This isn't always the case either.

In practice the older someone is, the harder it is to change their minds on anything, regardless of logic, emotion, intimidation, etc ...

Not surprising that advertisers and propaganda makers, are mainly interested in teenagers and young adults.  Young people's minds are not made up yet.  By the time someone is over age 30 or so, it seems to be largely pointless to try changing their minds on anything.


----------



## Janx (Oct 8, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Having followed a forum full of conspiracy theorists just for the fun of it for over a year, I believe with most of those people no amount of facts can make them get a better perspective on matters. It's like they want their theories to be true.
> 
> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> 
> Didn't they lose their latest models in public places at least twice?




I think you misunderstood my statement, based on the example and context.

When a crazy guy reads a fact, and then writes an explanation that is wrong, another person who isn't yet crazy, but also not quite right, will read it, see the fact, and since the foundation is sound (it has a fact!) they assume the rest is reasoning.

As they've found the religion gene, perhaps they can also find the crackpot theory acceptance gene.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 8, 2012)

Janx said:


> When a crazy guy reads a fact, and then writes an explanation that is wrong, another person who isn't yet crazy, but also not quite right, will read it, see the fact, and since the foundation is sound (it has a fact!) they assume the rest is reasoning.




I suspect the only people that will be swayed by such "reasoning", would be people who already believe (or want to believe) such "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or perceived).

In general, most people tend to look for "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or imagined) which conforms already to what they believe a priori, while mentally discarding facts and reasoning which do not conform to what they believe (or what they want to believe).

This is better known as the "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Janx said:


> As they've found the religion gene, perhaps they can also find the crackpot theory acceptance gene.




This may very well be an extreme exaggerated form of the notion that older people's minds are difficult to change (whether by external sources or by one's own will).


----------



## Janx (Oct 9, 2012)

ggroy said:


> I suspect the only people that will be swayed by such "reasoning", would be people who already believe (or want to believe) such "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or perceived).
> 
> In general, most people tend to look for "facts" and "reasoning" (whether real or imagined) which conforms already to what they believe a priori, while mentally discarding facts and reasoning which do not conform to what they believe (or what they want to believe).
> 
> ...




On confirmation bias, I suspect there are "undecided" people who don't know the theory, but are predisposed to believing it once heard, or predisposed to disbelieving it.

Much like the religion gene.  Folks with it are more likely to believe in a deity, and see certain events as holy (like surviving an accident).  Whereas others just can't accept religion as plausible.  Note, I'm not bashing religion here.  There was some science last year or so that showed this.  Based on genes or brain wiring, folks are predisposed to accept or reject certain ideas.


as for old people not changing their way, it's probably based on longevity of the idea being worn into their brain.  An old person has idea X reinforced in his head for 50+ years.  A young person has maybe had 10 years.

Neural network tends to path reinforcing.  So if you hit a new decision branch unlike any ever seen before, it's like a coin toss on which way you will go.  Once chosen (left or right), that choice earns a point.  Everytime you have to make a decision, the evidence is reviewed, and the past points on the choice you made are applied as evidence.  Which causesyou to decide again the same way as last time.  and earning another point on that path.

As a result, a groove wears in that you'll have no choice but to keep picking the same path.

Now that's a pretty loose explanation of how neural networks work, which is not my specialty.  But I've dabbled as a programmer and know more than my dog does on the subject.

But basically, an old guy has made the same choice for so long, his neural network won't let him choose something else with out some new factor to manipulate the trickle through effect of the decision.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 9, 2012)

Janx said:


> As a result, a groove wears in that you'll have no choice but to keep picking the same path.
> 
> ...
> 
> But basically, an old guy has made the same choice for so long, his neural network won't let him choose something else with out some new factor to manipulate the trickle through effect of the decision.




Essentially it resembles an unconscious reflex.

Even if one has knowledge of such cognitive biases, it's actually not that easy to counter such biases whether by one's own sheer will or by actively paying conscious attention to such biases.  (In practice, it is actually very difficult).


----------



## jonesy (Oct 11, 2012)

Janx said:


> Basically, when you're given an explanation backed with facts, you're more likely to acccept the explanation.  After all, it has facts, that you can check.
> 
> [MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION]'s explanation of actualy military consumption of ammo matches by guess of what it could mean.  Basically, training.  You'll probably use more ammo on the shooting range, than on the field, at least for folks NOT in an active combat situation.



Before I read this thread I was on YouTube watching a video of british tankers shooting large quantities of artillery rounds on a training ground. Why? Because the rounds were reaching their 'use before' date, and they were getting new ones anyway. Better to spend the old rounds for training than get rid of them.

Makes one wonder what portion of rounds gets 'wasted' like that in training.


----------



## Lwaxy (Oct 11, 2012)

An awful lot, it happens all the time, and not only with ammo.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 11, 2012)

MREs!


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Oct 11, 2012)

Scott DeWar said:


> MREs!



ZOMG!  How far do _those_ go when you shoot them out of a cannon??


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 12, 2012)

not as far as a pumpkin


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 12, 2012)

But they'll do more damage.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 12, 2012)

internal damage if eaten?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 12, 2012)

They're for _*EATING!?!?!*_


----------



## Scott DeWar (Oct 12, 2012)

so i've heard. The ones i've eaten might not have been so bad, but there are rumors from others that it sits like a block of depleted uranium.


----------

