"As far as the equations themselves, I have no idea what they show, and given that I had to do some applied maths courses as part of my education, I suspect that 99.0% of people globally would find them as meaningless as I do!"

Interesting.

Perhaps I'll make an explainer post about those equations. I'll be sure to drop a mention, in case you're interested.

For now, suffice it to say that the thrust of the math is to show the probability that a conspiracy would have suffered a breach of secrecy that exposes it (and thus defeats it's aims of secret influence) after a given time with a given number of people. It even uses empirical evidence from such broken conspiracies (like Watergate, the NSA PRISM affair, or the Tuskegee syphilis experimentation) to put bounds on the model.

I'm not sure whether your applied math education education included study of Poisson statistics, but this instance uses mostly familiar operations that can be worked out by hand with patience.

With the exception of a few logarithms, it's nothing more than addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponentiation. No calculus, trigonometric, or other exotic operations. Also if the parameter N(t), the number of conspirators at time t, is a constant (which could validly represent the average number of conspirators over time t) there is no need for the logarithms leaving only basic arithmetic operations.

You may find it more accessible than it seems at first blush after a bit of working out the numbers.

Cheers, and hopefully this demystifies the math for you.

P.S. neither the blathering, nor the math does the work of exposing conspiracy. The math just gives an objective tool to model the probabilities associated. It's simply a quantitative exercise to inform perspective in a rigorous way.