Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact?

I think this is one of the most important questions on ATS when dose a conspiracy theory become a conspiracy fact? There answer I suspect is incredibly complex and it probably changes allot for case to case.

The way i see it was have four categories for what fall under the umbrella term “conspiracy theory”. The first one is the conspiracy story, which basically somebody is telling us a personal testimony of something that has happened to them. This is usually a story of UFO abduction or about something suspicious they have seen. Typically they have no other way of verifying what they have said other than their own testimony. Then we have the conspiracy hypothesis, which is basically somebody with an idea based upon superstition and speculation, might be right might be wrong. I think there are allot more of these two types of conspiracies on ATS than we would generally like to think.

These two seem pretty straight forward, but what about true conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. What’s the difference? There must be one because not all conspiracy theories are true so there must be a line at which they become conspiracy fact. I suppose it could come down to what the individual thinks of as being a fact, but that then creates the problem of inconstancy and the problem remains because it is still not a fact, it is just a personal opinion. We have some conspiracies that are widely recognised as being conspiracy fact such as MK-Ultra and Iran-contra so what makes these different from other conspiracy theories.

Does anybody have a clear answer to this question that is universally accepted, or dose ATS have its own definitions that we can work to.

Conspiracy - a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

Theory - a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Fact - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened

Explanation - An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, and consequences of those facts.

I think it's pretty straightforward; You start with your theory of what happened, which involves a conspiracy. You then move to collect facts, compile them, and then construct an explanation.

A legitimate "conspiracy fact" would also be just a fact, or a conspiracy, not a theory, nor combination of the two. An example could be a group of people setting out to see if tobacco companies were hiring scientists to purposely falsify data and "prove" that cigarettes are harmless and may be beneficial. Started with a theory that incorporated a conspiracy, they collected facts and gave their verified explanation.

Or just a simpler explanation: the scientific method.

I think that you hinted at the way that it works(at least the way I think it works).

Conspiracy "theory" becomes fact when information is released from almost any source that fits a particular persons worldview.

If the government released reports that they were responsible for all the reported alien abductions, then the people who didn't believe in aliens would accept it as fact. On the other hand, those that did, would think it was another government cover-up to hide the existence of aliens.

I saw another thread that had people talking about how their world would come crashing down if their particular theory turned out to be wrong. People, not just conspiracy theorists, cling to their beliefs so much that they aren't willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Everyone here is the evidence that I need to support my case. You've been told a potential truth, but it conflicts with what you believe in your heart to be true.