The essence of the matter is this. Whenever an event happens, people will try to explain how it happened. In certain cases, they will make a theory that it was the result of a conspiracy. Thus we have the conjunction of two words, 'conspiracy theory.'Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 05:56Hi Avalancheon,
The opposite of an "unproven conspiracy theory" is not a proven conspiracy theory. The opposite of an unproven conspiracy theory is a hard historical fact.
Indeed, the word "unproven" is entirely redundant. "Conspiracy theories" are by definition "unproven" because they lack the necessary hard historical evidence.
All your supposedly "proven conspiracy theories" were never conspiracy theories in the first place. They may have been conspiracies, but they were things that actually happened for which there is ample historical evidence. There is nothing theoretical about them.
Some will back up their theory with hard evidence, while others will not. The strength or weakness of the theory does not change its conspiratorial element, despite what you claim. Even when conspiracy theorys are accepted by historians as a self-evident fact, that doesn't change the conspiratorial nature of the theory.
You might think that, but you would be wrong. After WW2, people made up all kinds of conspiracy theorys about the German enigma codes being broken by the Allies. The existence of the ULTRA program wasn't declassified until the 1970s. Only then was the conspiracy theory accepted as a fact by historians. This process goes on all the time. People made conspiracy theorys that the Soviets were responsible for the Katyn massacre, but this wasn't declassified until decades later!