It does not prove one thing over the other even if it was so. Evidence may prove something to be, but lack of it does not prove something not to be.
Of course it does not prove something not to be, but the whole point is that it makes it
more likely not to be.
Surely not that long ago people believed the world was flat, and anyone who believed differently might risk looking like a "lunatic" for thinking differently based on the a priori of the day based on the premises of their days.
Interestingly enough, it would appear that the spherical earth was strongly suggested in ancient Greece more than 2000 years ago, and formally proved in 300 BC. (this is mostly just an aside, fun fact! even, but might suggest that people simply weren't trying, or obvious evidence wasn't the true reason why this wasn't common knowledge). Also note that on this particular subject, popular belief doesn't sway too strongly one way or another.
Just consider if I was working in a nations intelligence agency....
This is not entirely a good analogy here. You would not throw away the report. You would instead adjust your priories that "this is their plan" and "I was fed false information" accordingly. You would throw neither to the curb, but if you found it entirely non-tactical of a plan or whatever it was, and you gave it a good analysis and could not find any good reason for it to be the case, then it would be a better choice to believe that there was a reasonable chance that you had been fed bad intel and take proper precautions.
Lack of evidence or lack of your knowledge ? Your assuming a lot before knowing almost anything about them.
Extreme intelligence no, but organization ofc, wisdom and understanding yes.
Celebrities... ? what most things are you talking about that would require intelligence from a celebrity, doing what they do, making music videos and doing as they are told from their producers ?
If you are purporting that there is a large groups of people spreading these symbols in the background. It MUST be the case that they are EXTREMELY good at plotting. Even complete idiots would notice them doing odd things reoccurring after a while. Therefore if they exist, they must be extremely intelligent. Mostly just for finding a way to keep that many people quiet and united under a cause.
Even if we work under the assumption that celebrities are complete imbeciles, I would be hard pressed to believe they didn't notice anything fishy and make a big media deal out of it, as they love to do. The intelligence on their part would be if they were in on it too, which you made it sound like could possibly be the case earlier.
This has already been mentioned... The secret societies terrible at keeping their secrets ? Well how well has it worked for you until I started telling you about it, or the majority of most people ...? So well in fact that even if you are starting to hear some now, you don't even believe that they exists. That speaks for itself imo.
If you are going to read any part, please let it be this. This is one of the main things I am trying to point out where you seem to be confusing yourself and not realizing it:
This is where I should come out failing and screaming "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE" at the top of my lungs, throwing holy water and fire crackers to catch your attention. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you just tried to tell me that the very fact that they have been so good at hiding themselves is evidence that they exist (and yes I read this multiple times to be sure).
This is the argument of absence of evidence. These sentences are almost ridiculously identical to the article where I learned the phrase, as a matter of fact. (I could try to find it again if you would like)
We know ALL their levels of secrecy you say. How would you know? Also the fact that some people know something about them doesn't mean the generalization that it's something the people know or are aware of as is self evident both in society and in this thread, or even that what a few knows is all. You also say we, which includes yourself, and even though you for some strange reason think so, its apparent that you don't. Your only assuming knowledge about something while at the same time being ignorant of what that knowledge actually is and denying the existence of what it reveals. It's like an oxymoron.
Which once again falls into absence of evidence. We can not possibly know that we know everything, but based on documentation from people who were in the inner circle, we can say it is very probable that we know all or most of it. I did leisure reading on it once, but I'm no expert on it either, btw.
You shouldn't say that she was incapable of keeping a secret, I doubt you know. But how would you even know anything about her if I was not here telling you about it, and how many do think even knows she existed let alone her works of the majority of people busy watching the superbowl... You're making this kinda silly jumping on the first and unfounded explanation, wanting to sound awesome ? You know nothing about her... She's not the only one being a part of it, she was a teacher of doctrines and even Hitler was a fan of her works. This only shows how little you really know when resorting to superficial assumption like that with no background insight. Like the easiest though about it is likely to be right.
A secret is something when you keep information so that others don't know it. You appear to know it. Therefore it is not a secret. Therefore she did not keep the secret. It might seem overly simple, but I can't see how it could go any other way. If I don't know it, it is merely a secret from me - though it is a stretch even calling it that, if it is readily available knowledge. I don't consider higher calculus a secret just because it is something I haven't learned.
Hmm it is difficult to sum up why that was my reaction. Basically I was got the impression, by the way you presented her, that the way of backing up her secret organization might be like how a grade schooler would over glorify their father's occupation? That doesn't seem like a good example, but maybe you can get the idea? Though again it was a weak possibility because it wasn't her own words and I don't know all the context, so you are right on that account.
Short answer...no it doesn't assume that at all. Why would it ?
But if they are in on it, they are also masterminds. You can't actively support it in genius underhanded ways without being questioned/found out and not be considered a mastermind.
And I think It does need to be said why that doesn't work, why is that ? Cause I don't see a reason, and if it exist I would be better off knowing.
He had the NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION! Some joe shmo! Some virtually nobody! They tried to make a deal with him and presented facts about the organization! They can't just kill him if he says no! People will find out! He can just go and tell that to everyone. The argument "oh they'll all just think he is crazy" can't even apply here, that just wouldn't make sense. SOMEONE would end up telling EVERYONE, and then a good deal of people would do EXTENSIVE research into the matter. Maybe also people like say, police who research drug trafficking or sex trafficking.
This is something that sometimes happens in secret agent movies. This is the kind of thing that could
never work in real life. They have to assume he would keep the secret before they even tried to make a deal, which if I make the stretch and assume it is a true story, he obviously didn't. This might be a tactic by drug lords for help with trafficking or something where it doesn't matter if more people know, but not for a super-intelligent organization. That it would be completely ridiculous is an understatement.
That, as I've said earlier and you also say here, otherwise there is the other possibility as I've also previously mentioned of destroying credibility by making something appear base and ridiculous. But overall again you make more assumptions that there is nothing to be accomplished simply because you don't know what it is. As mentioned don't reject a whole based on the lack of understanding a part.
If you can defend this by listing even one reasonably possible motive, I would consider it. I personally have no ideas.
Otherwise this can't influence your predictions before something actually happens. It can only influence your predictions of
if something
were to happen.
No I don't find find hands to have more meaning...
So you don't believe that hands can be as expressive as facial expressions? I could see where that would change things then. For myself personally as being an artist, I find hands to be immensely expressive. Hands always have to be 'doing' something. If they aren't, they just look weird. Sometimes the easiest way to make them not look weird actually
is to make them look weird. XD
Again you assume too much. This is not rational. Who said that they where in on it ?
You did. Just there. In your post. Maybe have another look?
Note that this topic is about secret societies. If that is the case, all we can do is try to make assumptions that are as valid as possible. We have to make assumptions because the hypothesis states that these societies exist and are secret. If they were not a secret, there would be no need to make additional hypotheses.
You stated that historians claimed that they went extinct, which first means that they existed (probable enough), and second that it is much more likely that the historians would be trying to cover it up. You even put emphasis on "extinct", unless that was just to suggest that you can't kill an idea.
And yet they will still know more than you who don't even believe they exist even now, or any of the other societies for that matter. You are clearly ignorant of their existences, but by continuing to dismiss something based on how hard or easy something is for you to believe based on your personal old sphere of knowledge/worldview or just your assumptions you are essentially dooming yourself to remain that way perpetually.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. There is merely a large absence of evidence.
The basis of Bayesian logic is trying to determine how likely something is and is not to be, and then altering your beliefs to match. New information alters these priories. This is what I've been doing this entire time, but I guess I never exactly said I was using Bayes so sorry if that was confusing :/
Note: I also don't claim to be advanced as a practitioner of Bayes, but trying makes me stronger.
Even when the ultimate fruition of their plans are going along maybe in your own neighborhood you will likely then just switch on your tv and believe the first and easiest explanation being told on the news. While anyone prearmed with the knowledge to see may be able to recognize perhaps what is coming or what is going on, or where it might lead to.
You seem to keep asserting that I am making baseless assumptions, so let me then ask: what might their plan be, and why
should they have a plan? Why not do it for fun, or just for some money making scheme. Unfortunately most of thing going around in the dark/advertising/bribing would tend to be a money losing scheme, and most people don't like those. What is any one decent candidate for our super intelligent organization that might involve all kinds of cryptic self advertising?
And for the love of God don't say world domination. If it was that boring of an answer they could easily have done it ages ago with their level of organization.
Set aside the organization, what would make you even begin to believe that they have a big master plan that has an end? Perhaps it is working as well as it ever will and that is that. Most people don't plan ahead several centuries, you know.
Perhaps even more important: if they have been around for thousands of years, what gives you the
slightest inkling of an idea that any kind of plan will come to fruition even
remotely[i/] close to your life time.
Lets wager that you live 1000 years. If they have been around over 1000 years already, how good should your chances be that they decide to enact their plans while you are alive? Maybe 50%?
This seems like another strong reason that should they exist, I have little reason to pay them any mind.
Once again: my point here is not that there is no way that these societies exist, it is simply that in my view it is more likely for this to be a point of artistic preference than for it to mean there is a secret society that communicates in manga and anime (not for that to sound condescending, mind you).
The point is that given the evidence at hand, I would be more surprised to wake up and hear that artists are in cahoots with ancient organizations than I would be to hear that artists tend to like drawing hands weird sometimes. For me it isn't about absolutely proving one or the other, it is about deciding which one is better for me to believe.
Sorry if I came across a bit harsh in this at times, but you seemed to brush past some things that I think are very important, so I tried to make them as obvious as possible.
, it's too bad though, it might have given you somethings to consider and help begin giving something more to base your thoughts on. 
