The only thing separating a lot of conspiracies ("theory") from (being regarded as) history is the time-space coordinates in which they are publicly acknowledged. I mean, things that have happened, of a conspiratory nature, are rarely disclosed in real time. But they can be found out or disclosed later.
The thing is one must have discernment to say what has substance, and what doesn't, and do so in real-time, when there is a lack of factual evidence. There is a lot of calculated guesswork going on there, but one can't assume the official storyline is the right one. When governments, big corporations, etc etc, have good reason to conceal the truth, they often do. And it's up to the people to find the truth. Some will accept the mainstream story, some won't, some will guess right, some won't.
Ask yourself alexgr
Even in real life events, whether it comes to personal relationships or even business do we ever disclose all the details of our affairs? Are we perfectly honest and open with everything? Ofcourse not. We hide some of our cards.
Why should the government or politicians expected to be completely open when their stake are much higher? I mean what kind of double standards do we have? Also like I aforementioned; If they are indeed so big and powerful why assume we know anything? We might as well follow breadcrumps, end up knowing exactly what they want us to know. Why would you assume that some random info from some shady website somehow reveals the truth to us? Those guys have been proven over and over again that they sell snake oil if anything and people desperate buy their crap because they distrust the alternative sources much more.
Everything is about marketing, even the ones saying that they supply us with the truth. Marketing demands secrecy. That does not make something a "conspiracy".
I view both info and disinfo as the catalyst that elevate human discernment. Without all this sea of misinformation (whether the misinformation masquerades as "official stories", or "alternative stories") it would be impossible for humanity to develop discernment.
Obviously those who are thought-clients, meaning they want someone else (whether it is a website, an "official", or some kind of presenter) to tell them what is true and what isn't, will never be properly catalyzed. They are like ...well, "clients", entering various "shops" and choosing to "buy" whatever truth they find to be more of their preference.
I believe if one structures their life along the lines of "everything is chaotic" is better off rather than trying to piece the strings of innumerable instances.
At the end the whole thing is nothing more than hubris to human intelligence. We often witness optical illusions and cannot even believe our own eyes. Considering the possibility that we can know things transfered to us through a narrative is ludicrous. Even in science we often see how a simple title in a scientific paper can be interpeted in so many different ways and we all have access to that same paper.
Imagine what happens when we add thousands of events in a situation that nobody really saw the whole thing.