OK, I don’t know if this counts as conspiracy theory or not, but…does anyone have an opinion on Farenheit 911 about whether or not all the “facts” put forth in it are actually facts? I never liked Bush and was more than happy to believe all the “facts” in the movie just to make myself feel better about disliking the man so fervently. I haven’t snoped it, has anyone else?
I’ve said it before here but it needs to be said again. No conspiracy theory has ever been proved to be true.
Saying that requires an actual definition of conspiracy theory. The pro CT loons like to lump everything that ever a secret at any time in history into conspiracy theories, but that’s obvious nonsense. Of course there are secrets. Of course there are conspiracies, which are defined in law (as in RICO) as two or more people plotting together. Of course there are scientific and other notions which are not accepted at first.
So what?
The definition given by Wiki is a good one, though I think it’s lacking a clause. The CT should also be denied officially and disproven by independent investigation. (That’s why disproving claims by totalitarian governments have no meaning. I know some CT loons believe all governments fall into that category, and the US government certainly on occasion lies, but for most people the distinction is clear.) That’s what drives the modern theories. The CT loons feel better for having beaten the game, for knowing something about the world that the rest of the “sheeple” don’t. That’s why the strongest CTs are 9/11 and birthers.
Crackpot theories are also in a different league. Every current scientific theory began as a refutation of or alternative to some older theory (using the common, not scientific, definition of theory). Every one. Wegener’s continental drift theory is one of the best examples of this. It wasn’t believed originally because of excellent scientific reasons. He could give no plausible causation for the continents moving. Without that he had a good notion, but it wasn’t science. When plate tectonics was developed he was given his due. Without that understanding of cause Wegener would remain - not a crackpot - but an advocate of a theory that didn’t develop. Big deal. Every major scientist has a record of some, even dozens, of theories that turn out not to have backing. Not understanding this is a fatal flaw of criticism of science. Science works by consensus, and consensus builds by convincing evidence, not by individual theories.
I was going to post that in your other thread, until it derailed. Freudian and Jungian psychology has lost whatever scientific consensus it once had. Neither group could provide convincing evidence that their patients objectively got better. Behavioral and drug therapy physicians have had better records in that department, although better is relative. Jungian thinking in particular has devolved into a tiny percentage of crackpots who believe, well, anything. Modern Jungians may be crackpots, but they also might as well be called conspiracy theorists. They believe that the rest of the world is wrong, even though the establishment evidence is entirely convincing to independent observers. They dabble in shamanism and spirits but can’t convince anyone outside of their group because they have no evidence that non-believers can accept.
In short, there are true conspiracies but no true conspiracy theories. The birthers won’t magically find the magic documents they claim exist. And no crackpots have ever hit scientific truth. True scientists change the consensus with new theories and new evidence. Timecube will never become true. The answer to the OP is “none.”
Another common but false myth is that opposition to Columbus was based on the belief that the Earth was flat. This was not true; educated people in the 15th century understood the Earth was a sphere.
Their opposition to Columbus was about the Earth’s size. The educated consensus said that you could theoretically sail west across the Ocean Sea to Asia but it was about ten thousand miles away and no current ship could sail that distance. Columbus said “No, those figures are wrong. Asia is less than three thousand miles west of Europe and I can sail that distance.”
The Spanish government finally decided that while Columbus was probably wrong, it was worth the risk to find out. Worst case scenario: they lose Columbus, a few dozen sailors, and three small ships. So Columbus sets out and sails west. And three thousand miles later, he lands in Asia just like he said. Or an island which he will spend the rest of his life trying to convince people is just off the coast of Asia.
Columbus is proof that being lucky is more important being right.
I had heard that after seeing the native flora and fauna that Columbus knew fairly quickly that he was not near Asia. Is that not true?
Why? What possible purpose would that serve?
Does Watergate count? Or was that never ‘crackpot’ in the mainstream view?
Rove’s involvement in the firing of federal procecutors?
We have had threads on this with interesting information. In short, Columbus was a world-class crackpot that could rival any one of today’s crackpots but he was also the luckiest crackpot in history. He died not knowing he discovered the New World even after four voyages.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=341842&highlight=columbus
[Moderating]
I’d prefer that we not go down this path, at least for now. If we get into discussion of whether recent political events were conspiracies or not, I’ll end up having to send this to GD, which I would rather to avoid. There have been plenty of threads in GD on Farenheit 911; check them out if you are interested.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Not in the least, in fact quite the opposite. Columbus fervently believed to the end of his life that he had found Asia, or at least its outlying islands. He rejected all contrary evidence, or reinterpreted it to fit his theory. With regard to new flora and fauna, he tried to identify them with species that were known to occur in India or the Far East; for example, he called chiles (which are only found in the New World) “peppers” specifically to identify them with the black pepper found in the East Indies.
That’s exactly what I was going to mention, as I just learned about that recently. It’s a fascinating example of what a thick-headed jerk he was.
Seems to me the examples given by the OP were not conspiracies at all, just one person butting up against a scientific consensus that eventually turned out to be wrong (the consensus, that is). That is actually science at its best–the only self-correcting enterprise on earth. (Maybe that 's too strond–refute it.)
Two examples that I didn’t notice mentioned. Wegener’s theory of continental shift. Dalton (and many earlier philosophers going back to the Greeks) theory of the atom. As late as 1900 there were still a few well-known physicists–I think including Ernst Mach–who didn’t accept it, although by that time they were a small minority But these are not conspiracies in any sense of the word.
See posts #9 and 22.
But note that the particles that were eventually named “atoms” weren’t atoms at all, in the theoretical sense envisioned by those early Greek philosophers. The physicists jumped the gun. It turns out that what we now call quarks are the real atoms.
… so far as we know! 
Intelligent design is a conspiracy to promote creationism in schools.
I wouldn’t call Newtonian physics “wrong” - it’s quite valid for pretty much everything which isn’t really small or really fast.
Where’s the confirmed conspiracy theory about the Maine? The cause is still unknown: (wiki)
"Why those magazines had exploded, no one could determine conclusively, and doubt remains as to the exact cause to this day. There have been four major investigations into the sinking since 1898. From the four inquiries, two hypotheses have emerged: one, that a mine in Havana Harbor had exploded underneath the battleship, causing the explosion of the magazines; and two, that spontaneous combustion of the coal in bunker A16 created a fire that detonated the nearby magazines…In 1999, to commemorate the centennial of the sinking of the Maine, National Geographic Magazine commissioned an analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises, using computer modeling that was not available for previous investigations. The AME analysis examined both theories and concluded that “it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines.”"
Now sure, no doubt that Hearst and other War Hawks (not to mention Human rights supporters) were slavering for a war with Spain, and thus they used the sinking as a causus belli. But at the time (and even today) the Spanish sinking the Maine with a mine was a perfectly good theory. The Spanish Empire at the time was more than a little arrogant, xenophobic, and politically unstable. Today, it seems crazy that they’d do such a thing, but the Spanish actually thought they could whup America with ease. It’s not impossible that some Spanish Officer thought that sinking the Maine would be a Good Thing, and bring back the glories of the Early Spanish Empire.
So, SmashTheState-- now that it’s pretty clear that your thread failed to reap the rewards you were expecting, can you at least tell us what you were going to do with all this juicy information? What conspiracy theory were you going to bolster by showing that other conspiracy theories have been true? How were you going to “make the snake bite its own tail”?