According to Anthony C. Sutton, author of the book "America's Secret Establishment," proof of conspiracy requires specific types of evidence

a) there must be secret meetings of the participants and efforts made to conceal joint actions.

b) those meetings must jointly agree to take a course of action

c) and this action must be illegal


Conspiracy is a word that people like to demonize. When in fact conspiracies happen all the time. For example, we may never know if the VP conspired with the heads of Energy corporations and eventually brought about recent historical events because what happened at those meeting remains a secret. However, if it is ever found out if and what the plan of action was and if that action was/is illegal, then that constitutes a conspiracy. Currently, the issue remains a theory, hence it is a conspiracy theory. It remains to be proven.

Sutton goes on to say in his book; pg 2-3

"Firstly, in science the simplest explanation to a problem is always the most acceptable solution. By contrast, in establishment history, a simple answer is usually criticized as "simplistic." what the critic implies is "The poor writer hasn't used all the facts," In other words, it's a cheap "put down" without the necessity of providing an alternate answer or additional facts.

Secondly, again in science, an answer that fist the most cases, i.e., the most general answer, is also the most acceptable answer. For example, you have 12 events to explain and a theory that fits 11 of these events. That theory is more acceptable than a theory that fits only 4 or 5 of the events."

My grandfather had a saying, "believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see." I guess I was taught to question authority, especially when facts don't add up. It doesn't make me or anyone else a conspiracy nut to hypothesize about certain individuals or groups in government conspiring to commit illegal acts, whatever they might be. Especially if the facts are kept hidden by the authorities.