i've got some news for some people: an obscure historical fact IS NOT a conspiricy theory... for example- if i were to say something like, "In the 1950s, the CIA launched a mind-control research program called MK-Ultra that included testing the effects of LSD and it's possible uses in the field of mind-control, and alteration of brain-wave function on individuals wo did not know that they were involved in the project." then gave you a credible source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA. : THAT IS NOT A CONSPIRICY THEORY. A conspiricy theory includes weaving a number of different facts, such as this together, in order to support a theory that suggests that the official version of a particular event is not accurate, and that there was and actual conspiricy involved. why are people so quick to label someone as a "conspiricy theory whack-job", just because that person happens to be aware of an obscure piece of historical information that person calling them a whackjob isn't?granted, the "historical fact" in question may not be true, as is true with ANY fact, but that still does not qualify it as a conspiricy theory.