How do I evaluate conspiracy theory claims critically?

Write the specific factual claim in one sentence, stripped of interpretation. 'A meeting occurred between X and Y in March' is a claim. 'They planned the crisis' is a conclusion drawn from it.

Most disputes evaporate once the two are on separate lines, because the claim is often true and the conclusion unsupported.

Ask how the alleged thing would actually be done. Who does the work? Who pays? How many people must stay silent, for how long, with what incentive? What happens if one defects?

Real operations leak. Watergate involved a few dozen people and collapsed in two years. A plan requiring thousands to stay silent for decades is not a plan.

A claim that cannot fail any test is not a strong claim but an empty one. If denials, evidence and silence all count as confirmation, you are inside a closed system.

State in advance what would change your mind, and hold yourself to it.

Incompetence, cost-cutting, aligned incentives, ordinary greed and institutional inertia explain more of the world than coordination does. Not because people are good, but because coordination is hard.

Parsimony is not naivety. It is a starting position that extraordinary evidence can move.

A global multi-decade operation requires global multi-decade evidence. A single document, a photograph or a suggestive quote cannot carry that weight no matter how genuine it is.

Match the size of your conclusion to the size of your evidence, and say so out loud when they do not match.