To start off with I do not either claim to subscribe to the majority of conspiracy theories, nor do I claim to disbelieve them either. I think each case deserves to be treated on it's own factual merits. Having said that, conspiracy has played and will continue to play a major role in the unfolding of world events. Conspiracy as I see it is really just a commonplace fact of political life, where there is motive for gain by two or more parties using subversion and manipulation, there will be conspiracy. Many "conspiracy theories" online seem of deeply flawed logic. Eg, how could someone plant airplane parts all around the Pentagon to hide the fact it was really hit by a missile before reporters arrived? And yet other conspiracy theories seem to be very much factually grounded and very much worthy of objective investigation. Eg, was Kennedy the first victim of gunfire in history to be flung towards the direction of the projectile? Many stories as reported by the corporate press (as bonafide mouthpiece of the state) today could only be believed by the biggest ignoramus. After a brief perusing of this site, it seems very much to be about "debunking" as opposed to critical, scientific analysis. Not surprising many in the scientific communities will err towards the "skeptical" side of the debate as most of your funding and livelihood comes from the state and corporate world. Plus it is just easier on the ego to be one of a thousand others who was wrong than the lone voice of reason in the world in many cases. Being skeptical does not equate with being scientific. Being biased towards evidence is not rational. Being deliberately dismissive of claims does science no justice and truly rational enquirers no favour.