I removed this:
"With all these claims, whether they be religious ones or claims about UFOs or faces on Mars or grassy knolls or WTC #7s falling down, you name it, there's always a tidy explanation for the lack of evidence. God has to hide so people can believe in him rather than just look up and say, hey, there's God. The UFOs are covered up by the CIA because if the Russians knew we were getting all our technology from Alpha Centauri they'd initiate a nuclear first strike before our perfect reverse-engineered Centaurian missile shield was ready. One faction in NASA sent the Mars probe to cash in on the contracts, and the other faction caused it to "fail" with buggy software to keep it from seeing the Martian monorail system, because if society saw how efficient mass transit worked on Mars, they'd demand it here on earth and the Oil Lobby mightn't like it."
Because I couldn't make hide nor hair of what it was trying to say. Maybe I missed the point? Maybe it was just a rambling rant? Let us discuss this. ħuman 01:46, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- The paragraph in question is talking about how conspiracy theories explain away their lack of evidence with "a tidy explanation" (one that fits into their conspiracy). Like, "I can't prove I built an over-unity machine because the Government stole the evidence." I think it made sense, but it gave way too many examples to be coherent. Stilldeciding (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 Concern trolling
I maybe wrong but isn't this site supposed to be unbiased because whoever wrote this page was dong a very poor job of it. They blatantly were trying to convince the reader that conspiracy theories are all untrue. While I do not support the large majority of conspiracy theories the author should not simply dismiss them all, after all even by their definition of a conspiracy theory they are unable to disprove those theories.— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
- Um no, this site is not suppose to be unbiased, we are biased towards reality. Sometimes that is hard to determine, so the balance of probability is used, along with we logical devices such as burden of proof. Read some of the info about our site if you would like to learn more. - π 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who often removes a lot of the uneeded and OTT bias from RW, I fail to see where any of the BONs accusations are. Perhaps if they were more specific rather than vague-ish - well, that'd be wishful thinking. The calim that the article suggests "conspiracy theories are all untrue" is blatantly false, it very clearly mentions that once a conspiracy theory has been proven, it becomes a conspiracy and it's out in the open and known - hence a conspiracy theory is either A) not proven to be true or B) proven not to be true. It's in the first section of the article. theist 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
“”Anyone who knows how difficult it is to keep a secret among three men - particularly if they are married - knows how absurd is the idea of a worldwide secret conspiracy consciously controlling all mankind by its financial power; in real, clear analysis.
Three chaps married to each other - bigamous/polyandros civil partnership?
The following are likely to apply.
Andy Warhol - everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame.
Money talks (somebody needs the money) - even if writing a potentially best-selling novel on the subject.
- As long as there's a section for this, I'll throw this one in from Doctor Who:
“”You're happy to believe in something that's invisible, but when it's staring you in the face, nope! Can't see it! There's a scientific explanation for that: You're thick.
|—Christopher Eccleston, World War Three|
 Duplicate article
This isn't a duplicate article to me. One is the factual reality of conspiracies as they exist in the world; the other is about the nutjob theories. GodotGrow a vagina 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Nobody can doubt that conspiracies exist. I would suggest that any planned criminal act which involves a group of people needs them to conspire in order to carry it out.
- This can be contrasted with "conspiracy theory" which typically tries to retrofit disparate facts in order to fit them to some imagined though non-existent (and usually unbelievably complex) conspiracy.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually as Keely pointed out in his 1999 paper Of Conspiracy theories (reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's 2006 Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate Ashgate ISBN 978-0754652502) there are warranted and unwarranted conspiracy theories. Here is a short list of warranted conspiracy theories:
- Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre
- Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin.
- Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location
- The Nazis set the Reichstag fire
- The point of this is to show all conspiracy theories NOT in the nutjob category--those are just the ones that the media focuses on. The above are conspiracy theories and they are also perfectly rational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 Mitrokhin Archive Addition?
I was wondering if we should make mention of a very ironic conspiracy that the Mitrokhin Archive mentions? The conspiracy I am refering to is the KGB's conspiracy to promote conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, AIDs virus origins, and Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and assassination. Considering the authenticity of the Mitrokhin Archive, I was wondering if we should make mention of that as a "take-that" to conspiracy nuts. After all, the irony of a KGB conspiracy to get idiots to believe conspiracy theories is too ironic to not warrant discussion of whether we should include it? Crow7878 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- , but if it's actually true, the KGB had to have been disappointed with the results. EVDebs (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a section of the book I am refering to (the book by intelligence historian Christopher Andrew named "Sword and Shield", which was about the contents of the Mitrokhin Archive). The authenticity of the Mitrokhin Archive has been confirmed by the United States Air Force Academy, FBI, and American Historical Association among others. Sword and Shield is filled with various conspiracies plotted and attempted by the KGB, but the section about the insanity that is the KGB conspiracy to make large amounts of people believe in crazy conspiracies is the one of most interest due to the irony that numerous conspiracy theorists were doing as the KGB wanted them to do. I do wonder what you meant by the KGB having been dissappointed with the results? Crow7878 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 Something on Harper's magazine
Perhaps we can cram "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" in Harper's magazine in this article? Although this is old, it's still got a touch of "current" to it. Faunas (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)