Well, I am a conspiracy analyst, not a theorist, knowing that conspiracies are the norm in history.  I examine the data and give probabilities of truth - not assigning "true" or "false" labels, as Most do - based on how well the data explain what I see.

I will adjust My probabilities as new data come along that better explain what I see, and never give 100% or 0% probability - there's always the possibility there are data I don't have.

In this way I don't attach to anything as most People who are assigning "true/false" labels do, unwilling to change despite data that suggest Their assessment is incorrect.

After 70 years of this approach, I find I have a very different view of things than Many, if not Most.

But I also find that it never seems to show signs of being wrong.

Thank You for Your payment of time and attention in reading! I am enriched!