Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. For years, people who said governments were secretly recording everyone phone calls and emails were laughed at. Then a telephone engineer described a locked room full of copying equipment, and later leaks proved the programmes were real and even bigger than claimed.
Most conspiracy theories are false, though. And a few are invented on purpose to hurt people.
So how do you tell them apart? Not by instinct. You need a method. Every file in this section uses the same one: separate what is proven from what is only claimed, weigh the evidence both ways, and be honest about what nobody knows. We do not mock these claims and we do not promote them. We show you the evidence and where it runs out.
The six-part structure
Every Conspiracy File is laid out the same way, in the same order, whatever the subject. That is the whole point. A good story can sneak a guess past you if the proven parts and the guessed parts are mixed together. Keeping them in separate boxes stops that.
| Section | What goes in it | What never goes in it |
|---|---|---|
| 1. What is proven | Only things backed by documents we have read ourselves. Each one shows its source. | Guesses, however sensible they sound. |
| 2. The claim | The theory explained fairly and at its strongest, in the words its supporters use. We say who says it and when it started. | Mockery, or a weakened version picked because it is easy to knock down. |
| 3. Evidence for it | Everything that genuinely points towards the claim, with a note on how strong each piece is. | Anything we have not checked ourselves. |
| 4. Evidence against it | Everything pointing the other way, judged by exactly the same standard. An official denial is recorded as a denial, not as proof. | Dismissing it just because an official said so. |
| 5. What we think | Our own reading of the evidence, clearly labelled as our opinion, with our reasoning shown so you can disagree. | Telling you the answer without showing our working. |
| 6. Still unknown | What is genuinely unresolved, and what evidence would settle it. | Pretending a question is closed when it is not. |
Section six is not a formality. On most subjects worth writing about, it is the longest section. If we have nothing to put in it, we have probably made a mistake somewhere.
Why separating them matters so much
Conspiracy theories are convincing because they mix true and untrue things together. A video will start with three facts you can easily check, add a real historical example, and then make a jump. By that point your brain has been warmed up to accept the jump with the same confidence as the facts.
The usual “debunking” video makes the opposite mistake. It picks the silliest version of the claim, knocks that down, and acts like the whole thing is finished.
Both approaches are asking you to trust their conclusion. We would rather show you the evidence and let you argue with us.
Two real examples
Once a conspiracy theory, now proven. In 2006 a telephone engineer gave a sworn statement about a locked room in San Francisco where internet traffic was being copied. At the time, the idea of bulk surveillance of ordinary people was widely treated as paranoid nonsense. Court cases and the 2013 leaks later showed the programmes were real, and larger than most of the accusations. Anyone whose method was “that sounds too crazy to be true” got this wrong for seven years.
Still genuinely unknown. Nobody knows who created Bitcoin. Many people have been named as Satoshi Nakamoto, several confidently by serious newspapers, and not one has been proven. This is what an honest empty box looks like. The truthful answer is that we do not know, and any file that claims otherwise is reaching too far. Our Timeline has the documented facts around it.
A good method has to handle both of those the same way. That is the test.
What we cover
- Internet and technology claims — surveillance, hidden backdoors, platforms manipulating what you see, censorship.
- Dark web myths — the famous stories about what supposedly exists on hidden sites, most of which survive only by being repeated. See also Internet Mysteries.
- Theories that turned out to be right — and what that should teach us about dismissing things too quickly.
- Deliberate disinformation — false stories made and spread on purpose. How they are built and paid for is usually more interesting than the story itself.
- Arguments about blame — disputed claims about who was really behind a hack or a leak.
What we will never publish
This is a firm rule, not a decision we make case by case:
- Theories that blame a religious, ethnic or minority group. These are not open questions. They are a very old type of propaganda with a documented history of leading to violence. Treating them as a fair debate gives them a respect they have not earned.
- Claims about private individuals. Naming an ordinary person as a secret villain gets them harassed, no matter how many careful words we wrap around it.
- Denial of proven atrocities. Where history is settled, pretending it is an open question misrepresents the evidence.
- Medical claims that could get someone hurt, where the science is not genuinely in doubt.
- Anything needing us to publish dangerous instructions. The rules in our Editorial Policy apply here too.
Refusing to examine something in this format does not mean every part of it is false. It means this format is the wrong tool, and using it would cause more harm than it would clear up.
Published files
Each file follows the six sections above, shows its sources, and gets updated when new evidence appears.
Six habits worth borrowing
These work far beyond this website:
- Ask what would change your mind. If the honest answer is nothing, you are not really thinking about evidence.
- Chase claims back to the source. Most shocking claims fall apart the moment you look for where they started, which is often nowhere.
- “Who benefits” is a question, not an answer. Someone gaining from an event is not proof they caused it.
- Count how many people would need to stay quiet. A secret kept by six people is very different from one kept by six thousand, forever.
- Think about missing evidence carefully. Sometimes nothing being found really does mean nothing happened. Sometimes it does not. It depends on whether you would expect to find something.
- Get comfortable saying “I do not know”. That is a perfectly good place to stop. Most conspiracy theories are really selling you the feeling of certainty.
Disagree with a file?
If you can show that we got a fact wrong, missed important evidence, or described a claim unfairly, please tell us. We especially want to hear from people who actually believe the theory we are examining. Email ehtijadalee@gmail.com. Our Corrections Policy explains what happens next.
Keep reading
- Investigations — the same evidence standard applied to documented cases.
- Conspiracy Theories archive — all our articles here.
- Internet Mysteries — unsolved online puzzles.
- Surveillance & Censorship — where several former “theories” now live as proven fact.
- Sources & Research — check any of this yourself.