> That's definitely conspiracy theory fodder, but little more than that.
A common trend in this thread seems to be labeling speculation as "conspiracy theory", seemingly to get out of having to justify one form of speculation is more valid than another.
Why are statements-of-fact "conspiracy theory fodder"?
> Why are statements-of-fact "conspiracy theory fodder"?
Conspiracy theory fodder are facts that offer no evidence of a conspiracy, but that the conspiracy-prone can't help but use as springboards for baseless speculation about one.
