Yes, I think there are. Without getting into the JFK thing, Bay of Pigs and all of that, it would probably be smart to start with an easily verifiable case of dishonesty to extrapolate from. Probably the most notable example I can think of would be the case of George W. Bush wearing a wire during his debate with Gore. It is easy to see and verify. The New York Times passed on running the alarming photographs of this because they ‘didn’t want to sway the election’ in their words. Let alone the point of a newspaper, especially a respected one, and ironically one criticized as being too liberal, is to report news, not to worry about the repercussions that could come from them reporting the news. That is the point of the news. But there was something fishy going on and they didn’t report it. Salon ran it, and W. won an illegitimate election.

That’s the most concrete I can think of. But let me write something tomorrow to address your question more thoroughly. I appreciate your reading.

Very well said – I think it is important to look at cause and effect. Like, if something conspiracy prone, like a terrorist attack or a suspicious piece of legislation occurs, who benefits from it? From there, I think it can often times be inferred that a conspiracy did in fact occur, because the only other explanation would seem to be no explanation. Make sense?

No, I don’t believe in any conspiracy theories. There are certain unpopular facts that are verified as being true, but that doesn’t make them conspiracy theories – just actual conspiracies that occurred. There’s a big difference.