If any "well established", "well known", or centralized source (big company or government) tells you something, challenge it in your mind first and see how plausible the challenging theory is given the other events going on at the same time.

If people react hostile to you as you challenge their perspective, assess whether you are being offensive or if they have been conditioned to shill. Since both conditioned sheep and shills are measurably more hostile.

As Ayn Rand points out: Always trust your own intellect, judgement, and your ability to draw conclusions. If you truly disagree with everybody, then rebel confidently. Take this advice to heart because in various cases even members of the "conspiracy herd" can become conditioned with disinformation. As a person unafraid of being branded a conspirator, you also can not simply align yourself with what other "conspiracy" people are saying.

Also, never feel powerless. I notice myself that when I spread a thought or idea, it can visibly catch on to quite a lot of people. That's why they are even astroturfing r/conspiracy . A rebel in thought can sew the seeds of question, and if it is a valid question, it can guide many reasonable minds towards seeking the truth.

Many people whom have worked in business networking and making deals (distribution and sourcing for instance) should know how important yet primitive networking can be. Conspiracies are real even on this level, people form groups, schemes, scams, organizations, deals, etc... and it's a world too where religion/race/class/respect/nepotism plays a factor as well. It just doesn't make sense to doubt larger conspiracies when smaller ones are always happening around us as well as documented in history books. So just trying to say: connecting dots is legit.

You're treating this like an axiomatic system. This is oligophrenic. Conspiracy consists of unconfirmed historical conclusions and philosophical perspective. Are there "laws"? Perhaps, but they don't really deviate from history. (History -- and historiography -- are difficult fields in their own right.) This is a humanistic pursuit.

Your first hurdle is sources. What has been kept out of the public eye? For how long? By whom? Why is there documentation which will be revealed later? (On this point, Foucault can be quite useful: the purpose of a secret is always to reveal it at a later date. Think of the logistics behind "the man in the iron mask". Why not just kill him?) Along with the "grey sources", you have a clear problem of "black sources" which would never be documented, but which can be reasonably inferred from other sources and other actions .

Your second hurdle are actors. Who is manipulating? What is the social network of conspirators? (This is where (((the J00Z))) gets invoked.) What are the unexpected lines of communication? How are these kept secret? This is where lists of bonesmen, or Rothschilds, or masons forms a key to conspiracy. The historical study of "social networks" is a hot topic right now. More importantly, it directs a lot of conspiracy research. The sketchy end game of this is the "Illuminati" conclusion that all the players are subject to the same system. This may or may not be true.

Your first tool is the Hegelian dialectic. A common assumption among conspiritards -- particularly the "Bavarian Illuminati" set -- is we know how manipulators act. This is what Alex Jones hammers with "problem-reaction-solution". If two of the three are known, it might be worth trying to reverse engineer what happened. If you stumble on a network of suspected conspirators, it's worth proposing a connection.

Your first atou was mentioned by /u/abc_xyz : conspiracy theories are theories because they are built of circumstantial evidence. Occasionally, the mask slips and someone confesses. These confessions are almost always discounted by mainstream analysts but consider how many false confessions com from police interrogations.

A group of individuals working together to achieve a common goal, usually manipulating or oppressing a facet, which directly affects the majority of the populace.

When someone is accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", this dual concept conflates the first word, which I previously defined and the concept of a theory -- insinuating that the person has zero evidence.

The problem is that they usually have a lot of circumstantial evidence, so the label is completely loaded.

it is a conspiracy, and here is a pile of circumstantial evidence.

Normally in these types of situations, the decision maker is killed or suicided - viewers forget the event even took place. Intelligence agencies are in on it to sweep the circumsntial evidence under the rug so to speak.

Based on the above:

Those with authority that deny the existence of obvious evidence tampering or OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE are likely party to said conspiracy.

Ex: Look at how Trey Gowdy dealt with this. He stated anyone who impedes his investigations will be forced to publicly explain why they are impeding his investigation.

No!

1. Conspiracies can be neither created nor destroyed- only changed.

2. The more knowledge of a conspiracy expands the greater the chaos it creates.

3. The chaos from a conspiracy approaches a constant value as the public knowledge approaches absolute truth.

4. For every conspiracy, there is an equal and opposite conspiracy.

There are no conspiracies. It's just politics as usual.

The top detractor of conspiracy theories is lack of proof.

Your first law will be considered fantastical and is impossible to prove, also not a paradox. Because I conceive of a question does not necessarily ensure each possible answer exists, especially when you consider historical questions vs. today's questions (angry god or volcano).

The second law fails to recognize patterns exist despite proving any one conspiracy theory. We continually make mistakes until we realize them so, does that mean every prior mistake proves a conspiracy theory? Also, why is it a Bigfoot print and not an alien print?

The third could mistake ineptitude for a conspiracy. Or, it could be a mundane conspiracy like lying to cover laziness or alcohol/drug enthusiasm.

I applaud the effort but plug those holes!

You could be like a lot of tards here and just screech about jews. Seems to have a built in audience, if you don't mind tards.