I think freightdawg has it right. Conspiracy theories require layers and collusion. I would say every one of the theories on my list meet these criteria. What's interesting to me is that at least some of them--and others--seem to be uncritically accepted by many Mudcatters. And in fact to ask for exact confirmation of them--in the form of objective evidence-- (i.e. not from sympathetic blogs)-- seems to be bad form.

However, be that as it may, I again say: If anybody believes that any of the theories cited in my list are facts, not theories, what is the conclusive proof?

And back to the original question: why are these theories--and others--so popular on Mudcat?

If it's anti-Bush sentiment--and thus any theory which implicates the US government condemns Bush yet again--that's certainly reasonable. I yield to no man in loathing of Bush and his works--especially the Iraq war, for which, as I've said before, he belongs in the circle of Hell next to the Austrian corporal, who also started unnecessary wars, by choice, and based on false premises. For the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign there is, of course, plenty of evidence, to say the least.

But I still require actual evidence before accepting any theory. And sometimes it seems I'm in a distinct minority in this.

So why do so many on Mudcat seem to accept (some of ) of these theories--and others--as gospel, not even trying to exercise their critical faculties in exploring contradictory evidence?