A general question about conspiracy claims: Can game theory offer any insights as to which conspiracies are plausible and which can be ruled out of court? Physical principles can allow us to rule out perpetual motion machines without having to know how details of the machines' construction and operation. Are there any general, empirically-based principles from game theory (or the social sciences) that can render a similar service concerning conspiracy claims? Perhaps it may be helpful to recast conspiracy claims in terms of games where secrecy is a significant factor. For example, a football team attempts to keep secret its various play strategies until it's presumably too late for the opposing team to profit from the knowledge. However, the opposing team's coach may infer the hidden strategy after observing a number of plays. Note that in this example, the coach knows that the opposing team is "conspiring" against his team, but such knowledge is of limited value unless the coach can pierce the team's veil of secrecy. A country's leaders may have good reason to suspect that various foreign intelligence services are conspiring to undermine them, but they're nevertheless at a disadvantage without a knowledge of the services' sources and methods.