comment: >
  
  ...it was actually hamburgers?
context: Some things aren't even conspiracy theories, like the CIA just straight up admits stuff lol. >
  
  Yeah and everyone's just like "Huh, cool" >
  
  We're not even like "huh cool". We're like "which person on this ballot will hold these agencies accountable?  Oh, seriously?  Neither of them?  None of them? Well okay then." >
  
  The weird thing is, not that long ago, Reddit was mocking Republican holdouts during the nomination of a speaker of the house and one of their primary demands was an investigation into the intelligence agencies.
  People are so insanely partisan that they will oppose people doing something they want if they belong to the wrong party. >
  
  What’s the point of these intelligence committees investigating themselves tho? >
  
  We have investigated ourselves and determined that we have done nothing wrong! >
  
  There's a difference between claiming that, despite a massive preponderance of evidence, something didn't actually happen (like the moon landing or the Holocaust), and coming up with a theory to explain the why and how of something that DID happen (JFK was assassinated). >
  
  
  JFK was assassinated
  
  Wrong! His head just did that all on its own.  Wake up sheeple! >
  
  It was actually a failed assassination attempt, the bullet missed Kennedy, but he was the only one aware at the moment 
  The shock of that knowledge combined with the overall stress he culminated as president was far too great, and created too much pressure in his head, with no way to release all that pressure his head exploded. 
  The government realized that if the public knew that could happen to anyone the increased panic and stress would create countrywide "head popping" scenarios, so they went with the safer story and just covered it up as a successful assassination. >
  
  so... task failed successfully? >
  
  Here's one: Stanley Kubrick was hired to film the fake moon landing, but being such a perfectionist, he insisted on actually going to the moon to film it. >
  
  I guess it depends on what conspiracy theories you're talking about. There are definitely lots of real conspiracies, but I think when people say "conspiracy theory" they're generally referring to theories that upend basic assumptions about how our world works, with unclear or unsatisfying motivations, and which would involve an impossible amount of people keeping it under wraps. There are plenty of more believable conspiracies that don't meet those criteria, which I imagine are what you're referring to. >
  
  That's exactly what I mean. I don't like people who blanket deny all conspiracy theories, or make generalisations like 'conspiracy theories are dangerous', and shut down discussion. There's no one rule for all conspiracy theories. Some upend more basic assumptions than others. They should be considered individually. >
  
  Conspiracy theory: a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon
  In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. >
  
  There’s a happy medium between “I think the World is ran by lizard people” and “I think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone” >
  
  Isn't the conspiracy that there were multiple assassins? >
  
  
  There ain't no way that the all of 'the CIA killed Kennedy, flouride is bad for the brain, the vaccines is ineffective and dangerous, there are paedophile rings in the highest places, Obama spent $65,000 on hotdogs at the Whitehouse, chemtrails etc.' are all wrong
  
  Uh, sure there is. A large number of incorrect claims does not mean one of those claims suddenly becomes correct. >
  
  Tbh I can believe the 65k hot dog claim; The White House likely consumes insane amounts of food for meetings, diplomacy or banquets etc. >
  
  Yeah, I didn't pay much attention to that one in his list, but I'm not sure how it even counts as a conspiracy theory. >
  
  Hotdogs is a code word in that theory.