The reason for this system to have been developed is because our senses can be fooled. Any magician will attest to that fact. Also, just because we observe two things to be in close proximity does not mean they are related by cause and effect. Seeing the same two people in an elevator on a regular basis does not mean that one followed the other. It may be a coincidence.
At this point, let's define some terms.
A conspiracy is two or more people acting together to create a certain outcome. In recent years, it has taken on nefarious connotations and implies some kind of evil or illegal intent, but the pure meaning of the word is simply, "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result." In fact, the word is derived from two Latin words, con meaning 'wtih' and spirare meaning 'breathe'. In other words, it means 'to breathe together'.
A theory is the result of testing an idea. We suspect that the two people we regularly see together in the elevator are related somehow. We observe their behavior over time and notice that they appear together nearly every day at the same time, getting on and off the elevator together at the same floor, both wearing ID cards for the same company, and theorize that they work together and have a common interest, such as coffee break, that brings them together at the same time. The theory is still falsifiable, as we still know nothing of their relationship other than objective observation. But it does give us something to go on.
We can continue to collect observations, such as seeing them sitting together at the coffee bar, arriving at or leaving work together, etc., that continue to confirm or deny our theory. Under the rigors of logic, if we can falsify any part of our theory, we must throw the whole thing out and start over.
Using our model of the two people on the elevator, we now have a conspiracy theory. These two people are associated in a certain context and we have reason to believe they have a common purpose. As we continue to observe them, we either add evidence to our theory of falsify it.
By the same token, the JFK assassination involves several competing conspiracy theories. Most agree that there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy (two or more people acting together); however, the actors involved gets a bit murkier with lines of evidence pointing in multiple directions. This does not falsify the conspiracy theory, only set up multiple lines for investigation.
The theory of relativity implies a great many related phenomena and each must be researched and tested as part of the whole. If the theory is dependent on certain phenomena, then falsifying any one of them negates the entire theory. If, however, something is only a corellary, then falsifying that one thing does not collapse the whole.
In the JFK matter, some corollaries have been falsified, but the overall theory of a conspiracy has only strengthened over time.
To prove a conspiracy, we only need to prove that two or more people have been involved. The banking system, 9/11, 7/7, and many other phenomena have very obviously been shown to be conspiracies. By their very nature, they involve multiple actors working together in common cause to create the phenomenon. For this reason alone, it does not matter who puts forth the theory, it is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.
A theory does not depend on who originates it, Whether from a government agency or private individual, a theory is, by its nature, testable by objective means. The Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission both put forth theories. The first denied a conspiracy, which has been falsified by testing. The second put forth a conspiracy that has failed upon further investigation. In both cases, the failure of the dominant theory has left a vacuum for other researchers to fill, and they have in copious numbers.
The problem arises when a dominant theory is falsified. If Einstein's relativity theory were to be falsified, then it would leave a huge gap in modern theoretical understanding of the Universe. New theories would have to be examined and a replacement found that would provide new ground for investigation.
A conspiracy theory is not wrong or subversive on its face. No one denies that Julius Caesar was killed by a conspiracy of senators, including his best friend and confidant Brutus. To be sure, at the time that conspiracy theory was just as outrageous as some competing theories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 events are today. However, time has proved it out.
'Authorities' have, in recent years, tried to discredit theories by labeling them 'conspiracy theories'. They have attempted to smear independent researchers and investigators by labeling them as such. Furthermore, they use the term to inhibit independent investigation into those events they do not want exposed.
Galileo offered proof that not all objects in the Universe orbit the Earth. Copernicus resurrected the heliocentric theory. Both men were soundly denounced by 'authorities' who did not want reality upsetting their apple carts. By definition, these 'authorities' were conspiracies acting to limit knowledge and truth, and to prevent the undermining of their privileged positions.
We may conclude, then, that 'authorities' who act to squelch independent investigation and theories are themselves involved in conspiracies. The scale of the collusion does not negate the fact. When multiple individuals point the finger of accusation at 'conspiracy theories' because the truth would undermine their 'authority', then they are, by definition, conspirators attempting to limit free and open discourse. Ipso facto, they negate their own 'authority' on the matter.
I propose that any topic which the 'authorities' attempt to hide by calling it a 'conspiracy theory' should make us pay more attention, not less. Whenever a group, especially those in positions of 'authority', work so hard to discredit open inquiry into certain events, then that is evidence of a conspiracy, not only to cause something to happen, but to hide the truth.
We should then consider it a badge of honor to be accused by 'authorities' of being 'conspiracy theorists'. The label alone means that we have touched upon some truth that causes them fear, and the fear stems from a feeling of guilt on some level.
So much of what we take for granted now started as a 'conspiracy theory'. Massive banking fraud, black helicopters, false flag terrorism, and any of a dozen other topics were once relegated by 'authorities' to fringe elements and tin-foil-hat theorists. Even such things as a heliocentric solar system and moons orbiting other planets were once dangerous ideas, but dangerous only because the truth upset the apple cart of the powers that were.Truth is not always pretty, but that does not make it any less true. Labels aside, the quest for truth is a vital and necessary part of our advancement as a species. Every dark age in history has been caused by a conspiracy of authority to hide truth. If we allow authority to stop free and open inquiry into truth, then we are dooming ourselves to yet another century or two of darkness and regression.
It is time to redefine 'conspiracy theorist' as one who is at the forefront of saving humanity!
